Copyright by Matthew Nielsen Albert 2006 N. Albert Thesis Spring 2006.pdfField Testing of...

Copyright

by

Matthew Nielsen Albert

2006

Field Testing of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures

under Truck-Induced Gust Loads

by

Matthew Nielsen Albert, B.S.

Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Science in Engineering

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2006



Approved by Supervising Committee:

Lance Manuel

Karl H. Frank

Dedication

To Jessica for all her love, support, and understanding throughout the past two years.

v

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for their contributions to this research

project.

Foremost, I would like to thank my family: Mom, Dad, Melanie, and Andrew.

Thank you for all the love and support. You have made me the person I am today.

Jessica deserves a tremendous amount of praise for her never ending love, support

when I was stressed out, and understanding when I was busy with schoolwork. I could

not have done it without you. Thank you. I love you!

I would like to thank the Texas Department of Transportation for sponsoring this

project including Scott Walton, Scott Cunningham, and the bucket truck crews for their

contributions.

I would like to thank Dr. Lance Manuel, Dr. Karl H. Frank, and Dr. Sharon L.

Wood for their guidance, time, and knowledge without which this project never would

have been completed. Royce, Craig, and especially McCormick for his help during

spring break, deserve special thanks for assisting with the field tests.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the rest of the faculty and staff and

especially all my friends in the Structures Department at the University of Texas at

Austin. You made the past two years a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.

May 2006

vi

Abstract



Matthew Nielsen Albert, M.S.E.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2006

Supervisor: Lance Manuel

Changes in the AASHTO fatigue design equations for truck-induced gust loads

have been made in recent years. However, there has not been any long-term field testing

of cantilevered traffic signal structures to verify the design equations. In this study, two

cantilevered traffic signal structures were monitored in field testing to determine the

effects of truck-induced gust loads. Over 400 truck events were observed in the field, but

only 18 trucks produced a detectable effect on the cantilevered traffic signal structure.

Interestingly, the truck-induced gusts caused a greater effect in the out-of-plane direction

(same direction as traffic flow) instead of the in-plane direction that is included in the

AASHTO Specifications. It was determined that overall natural wind gusts produce a

larger response in cantilevered traffic signal structures than gusts produced by trucks

passing beneath the signals.

vii

Table of Contents

Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................1

1.1 Background............................................................................................1

1.2 Research Motivation ..............................................................................1

1.3 Truck-Induced Gust Loads ....................................................................3

1.4 Project Scope and Objectives.................................................................5

Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................6

2.1 Overview................................................................................................6

2.2 Previous Research on Truck-Induced Gust Loads.................................6

2.2.1 Creamer et al. (1979) ....................................................................6

2.2.2 Edwards and Bingham (1984) ......................................................8

2.2.3 Cook et al. (1996) .........................................................................9

2.2.4 DeSantis and Haig (1996)...........................................................12

2.2.5 Cali and Covert (1997)................................................................14

2.2.6 NCHRP Report 412 (Kaczinski et al., 1998)..............................16

2.2.7 Johns and Dexter (1998) .............................................................16

2.2.8 NCHRP Report 469 (Dexter and Ricker, 2002) .........................19

2.3 AASHTO Fatigue Design ....................................................................21

2.3.1 The 2001 AASHTO Specifications ............................................21

2.3.2 The 2002 Interim Edition to AASHTO Specifications...............23

2.3.3 The 2003 Interim Edition to AASHTO Specifications...............24

Chapter Three: Preparations for Field Tests .........................................................25

3.1 Selection of Field Sites ........................................................................25

3.1.1 The Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd..................27

3.1.2 The Field Test Site on US290 at SH95.......................................29

3.2 Equipment ............................................................................................32

3.2.1 Strain Gauges ..............................................................................32

3.2.2 Data Acquisition Unit and Software ...........................................34

3.2.3 Radar Gun ...................................................................................36

viii

3.2.4 Anemometer................................................................................37

3.2.5 MicroSAFE Units .......................................................................38

3.2.6 Additional Equipment.................................................................40

3.3 Data Recording Procedure ...................................................................40

3.4 Types of Trucks ...................................................................................41

Chapter Four: Field Testing ..................................................................................46

4.1 Overview..............................................................................................46

4.2 Controlled Field Tests..........................................................................46

4.2.1 Static Load Test ..........................................................................46

4.2.2 Pluck Test....................................................................................48

4.3 Available Data on Truck-Induced Gusts..............................................51

4.4 Analysis of Truck Events.....................................................................54

4.4.1 “Ideal” Truck Event ....................................................................60

4.4.2 Three Consecutive Semi/Tractor-Trailer Trucks in Lane 1........64

4.4.3 Box-Tall Type Truck ..................................................................66

4.4.4 Semi-Tall Truck in Lane 2..........................................................68

4.4.5 Delivery Truck’s Unexpected Response.....................................70

4.4.6 Trucks in Lanes 1 and 2 at the Same Time.................................72

4.5 Effect of Natural Wind.........................................................................74

4.5.1 Short-Term Wind Data ...............................................................75

4.5.2 Long-Term Wind Data................................................................81

Chapter Five: Conclusions....................................................................................85

5.1 Discussion of Results...........................................................................85

5.1.1 Exposure of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures to High Speed Truck Traffic...............................................................................85

5.1.2 Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures versus Cantilevered Highway Sign Structures ............................................................................85

5.1.3 Influence of Truck Type .............................................................87

5.1.4 Influence of Traffic Lane ............................................................89

5.1.5 Influence of Truck Speed............................................................91

ix

5.1.6 In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Structural Response.....................93

5.1.7 Structural Response Due to Truck-Induced Gusts versus Natural Wind............................................................................................95

5.2 Comparison of Results from Field Data to AASHTO Design Code ...97

5.3 Conclusions..........................................................................................98

5.3.1 Summary of Work.......................................................................98

5.3.2 Recommendations.......................................................................99

Appendix A: List of Sources Used in Literature Review ....................................101

Appendix B: AASHTO Design Example ............................................................107

Appendix C: Potential Sites for Field Tests.........................................................118

Appendix D: TxDOT Drawings for the Two Field Sites and the Signal Structures There ...........................................................................................................119

Appendix E: Datalogger Program........................................................................124

Appendix F: Truck Gust Field Data.....................................................................128

References............................................................................................................142

Vita .....................................................................................................................144

x

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Test Matrix (Cali and Covert, 1997).....................................................15

Table 2.2: Truck-Induced Gust Pressure Variation with Height (Johns and Dexter, 1998) ...........................................................................................19

Table 2.3: Importance Factors for Truck-Induced Gusts (AASHTO, 2001).........22

Table 2.4: Wind Drag Coefficients (AASHTO, 2001) ..........................................22

Table 3.1: Potential Sites for the Field Tests .........................................................26

Table 4.1: Truck Information for Figure 4.11 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 09-20-2005, Part 1)....................................56

Table 4.2: Truck Information for Figure 4.12 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 08-24-2005, Part2).....................................57

Table 4.3: Truck Information for Figure 4.13 (from the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 – 03-27-2006, Part1) .........................................................58

Table 4.4: Summary of Trucks that Affected the Strain Data ...............................60

Table 4.5: Truck Information for Figures 4.14 and 4.15 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 09-20-2005, Part 1)...................62





Table 4.10: Wind Information at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 for March 15 and 16, 2006................................................................................76

Table 4.11: MicroSAFE Rainflow Cycle Counts Data for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 .......................................................83

xi

Table 4.12: MicroSAFE Rainflow Cycle Counts Data for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 .......................................................83

Table 5.1: Comparison of Observed Strain Range Levels to AASHTO Design Strain Ranges.........................................................................................98

xii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Failure of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structure in Pflugerville, Texas in December 2003 .............................................................................2

Figure 1.2: Fatigue Crack Initiated by Cyclic Loading ...........................................3

Figure 1.3: Typical Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structure in Texas........................4

Figure 2.1: Pressure Distribution and Impulse Function To Simulate a Truck-Induced Gust (Creamer et al., 1979)...........................................................8

Figure 2.2: Bridge Mounted Apparatus (Cook et al., 1996) ..................................10

Figure 2.3: Typical Truck-Induced Gust Pressure (Cook et al., 1996)..................11

Figure 2.4: Typical Truck (Cook et al., 1996) .......................................................12

Figure 2.5: Pressure on Front of Highway Signs (Cali and Covert, 1997)............15

Figure 2.6: Column Response Due to Truck-Induced Gust (Johns and Dexter, 1998).....................................................................................................18

Figure 3.1: Location of Potential Sites for Field Tests (Google Maps, 2006).......26

Figure 3.2: The Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ..........................28

Figure 3.3: Aerial View of the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd (Google Maps, 2006) ..................................................................29

Figure 3.4: The Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 ...............................................30

Figure 3.5: Site Location in Elgin (Google Maps, 2006) ......................................31

Figure 3.6: Aerial View of the Field Site on US290 at SH95 (Google Maps, 2006)31

Figure 3.7: Strain Gauges Attached to Mast Arm and Shielded Cables................34

Figure 3.8: CR23X Datalogger ..............................................................................35

Figure 3.9: Radar Gun............................................................................................36

Figure 3.10: Anemometer ......................................................................................37

Figure 3.11: MicroSAFE Unit with Battery ..........................................................39

xiii

Figure 3.12: Box-Type Trucks (Box-Small and Box-Tall) ...................................42

Figure 3.13: Concrete Truck ..................................................................................43

Figure 3.14: Dump Truck ......................................................................................43

Figure 3.15: Garbage Truck...................................................................................44

Figure 3.16: School Bus.........................................................................................44

Figure 3.17: Semi/Tractor-Trailer Truck (Semi-Low, Semi, Semi-Tall) ..............45

Figure 4.1: Static Load Test...................................................................................47

Figure 4.2: Static Load Test Data (Strain Data at the Top and Bottom of the Mast Arm) for the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95.........................48

Figure 4.3: Free Vibration Response of the Instrumented Structure at the Field Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ......................................................49

Figure 4.4: Free Vibration Response of the Instrumented Structure at the Field Site on US290 at SH95 ...........................................................................50

Figure 4.5: Smoothed Power Spectra of the Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm as Obtained from the Pluck Test at the Field Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ..................................................................................50

Figure 4.6: Smoothed Power Spectra of the Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm as Obtained from the Pluck Test at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 ...........................................................................................51

Figure 4.7: Histogram of Truck Speeds at the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ..................................................................................52

Figure 4.8: Histogram of Truck Speeds at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH9553

Figure 4.9: Histogram of Speeds for Trucks Traveling in Lane 1 Based on Data from Both Field Test Sites...................................................................53

Figure 4.10: Histogram of Speeds for Trucks Traveling in Lane 2 Based on Data from Both Field Test Sites...................................................................54

Figure 4.11: Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm (top) and the Side of the Mast Arm (bottom) Recorded at the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ..................................................................................56

xiv


Figure 4.13: Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm (top) and the Side of the Mast Arm (bottom) Recorded at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH9558


Figure 4.15: Trucks that Produced the Strain Data Shown in Figure 4.14 ............63


Figure 4.17: Truck that Produced the Strain Data Shown in Figure 4.16..............66








Figure 4.25: Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm (top) and the Side of the Mast Arm (bottom) Recorded at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH9574

Figure 4.26: Large Strain Cycles not Caused by Trucks at the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd ......................................................75

xv

Figure 4.27: Strain and Wind Data Recorded at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 – 03-15-06, Part 1: Top Strain (top), Side Strain (middle), Wind Speed (bottom)............................................................................77




Figure 4.31: Wind Data for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95.....................................................................................................81

Figure 4.32: Wind Data for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95.....................................................................................................82

Figure 4.33: 3-D Rainflow Cycle Counts Histogram for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 .......................................................84

Figure 4.34: 3-D Rainflow Cycle Counts Histogram for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 .......................................................84

Figure 5.1: Influence of Truck Type on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain) .88

Figure 5.2: Box-Type Dump Truck .......................................................................88

Figure 5.3: Influence of Traffic Lane on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain)91

Figure 5.4: Influence of Truck Speed on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain)92

Figure 5.5: In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Mast Arm Strains.................................94

Figure 5.6: In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Stresses for a VMS Structure (Johns and Dexter, 1998) ..............................................................................95

Figure 5.7: Influence of Truck-Induced Gust versus Natural Wind on In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Mast Arm Strains ..................................................97

1

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND

Cantilevered traffic signal structures are located at intersections throughout the

United States as an economical solution for traffic control. A major advantage of using a

single support structure for traffic control is the reduced probability of a vehicle collision.

However, as the spans of the horizontal mast arms continue to increase, the flexibility of

these structures also significantly increases. The high flexibility, combined with low

mass and damping, causes cantilevered traffic signal structures to be susceptible to large

amplitude oscillations and in some cases fatigue cracking due to cyclic loading. The four

sources of wind-induced cyclic loading are galloping, natural wind gusts, truck-induced

gusts, and vortex shedding.

1.2 RESEARCH MOTIVATION

Since cantilevered traffic signal structures are so widely used, any problematic

issue could lead to enormous problems for Departments of Transportations (DOTs)

across the nation. Failures of cantilevered traffic signal structures in several states

including Texas, illustrated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, led to stricter provisions for fatigue

design in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs,

Luminaires, and Traffic Signals in 2001. These new provisions, which were developed

without wind tunnel or field testing, made it much more difficult for several states

including Texas to design economical AASHTO-compliant cantilevered traffic signal

structures. Thus, following a previous study summarized in the National Cooperative

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 412, Fatigue-Resistant Design of

Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light Supports (Kaczinski et al., 1998) and the 2001

2

AASHTO Specifications, Report 469, Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal,

Sign, and Light Supports (Dexter and Ricker, 2002) recommended that long-term field

testing be performed to verify the new truck-induced gust equivalent static pressure

ranges recommended in the fatigue design section of the Specifications.

Figure 1.1: Failure of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structure in Pflugerville, Texas in December 2003

3

Figure 1.2: Fatigue Crack Initiated by Cyclic Loading

1.3 TRUCK-INDUCED GUST LOADS

This research study was concerned with field tests and the recommended design

provisions for truck-induced gust loads on cantilevered traffic signal structures. Every

time a truck passes beneath a cantilevered traffic signal structure, it generates both a

horizontal and vertical force on the structure. According to the Specifications, only the

vibrations caused by the vertical component of the truck-induced gust need to be

considered because in the horizontal direction the vibrations resulting from the natural

wind are more dominant than those produced by truck-induced gusts (AASHTO, 2003).

For this reason, truck-induced gust pressures are only applied to the exposed horizontal

surfaces of the mast arm and attachments (traffic signals and dampening plates). Texas is

one of a few states that have their traffic signals positioned horizontally on the mast arm,

as can be seen in Figure 1.3. For the other states that mount their traffic signals vertically

4

on the mast arm, the vertical orientation reduces the exposed area over which the vertical

truck-induced gust pressure is applied. Therefore, truck-induced gusts are a greater

concern for design engineers at the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

Figure 1.3: Typical Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structure in Texas

The current design equations for truck-induced gust loads are thought by many

design engineers across the country to be overly conservative. This might be particularly

true in the case of cantilevered traffic signal structures because there have not been much

field testing to determine truck-induced gust loads. Of the field tests that have been

completed, the majority were studies of variable-message sign (VMS) structures and a

few on cantilevered highway sign structures. The reason for this is that VMS structures

have large horizontal areas making them the most susceptible type of cantilevered

support structure to truck-induced gusts. In fact, the AASHTO design equations were

likely adopted following the study of a single VMS failure (as is discussed in Chapter 2),

5

although it has not been shown that the design pressures for a VMS structure are

applicable to cantilevered traffic signal structures.

1.4 PROJECT SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

This thesis presents results from a series of field tests of cantilevered traffic signal

structures under truck-induced gust loading conducted by the University of Texas at

Austin. It is part of the TxDOT-sponsored research Project No. 0-4586, “Revision of

AASHTO Fatigue Design Loadings for Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signal Structures,

for Use in Texas.” TxDOT Project No. 0-4586 is a joint effort between the University of

Texas at Austin and Texas Tech University to re-evaluate the AASHTO design equations

for galloping loads and truck-induced gust loads based on a series of controlled tests and

field tests. The University of Texas at Austin was responsible for the field testing

associated with the project while Texas Tech conducted the controlled tests at their Reese

Technology Center site. Details related to the field testing of galloping loads can be

found in the Master’s thesis titled “Field Tests and Analytical Studies of the Dynamic

Behavior and the Onset of Galloping in Traffic Signal Structures” (Florea, 2005).

The primary objective of this research project is to conduct field testing of

cantilevered traffic signal structures under truck-induced gust loads in order to improve

or validate the current fatigue design specifications. Chapter 2 contains a literature

review of the pertinent articles related to truck-induced gusts. It also discusses the design

philosophy of the AASHTO Specifications. Chapter 3 describes the equipment used

during the field testing and the field setup procedures. Chapter 4 summarizes field test

data and Chapter 5 discusses the results and provides the recommendations.

6

2 Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1 OVERVIEW

The first portion of this research project consisted of an extensive literature search

to review earlier studies that discussed not only truck-induced gust loads but cantilevered

traffic signal structure behavior in general. The complete list of references compiled

during this search is presented in Appendix A. Although not all of these references will

be discussed in this chapter, each one was invaluable in gaining knowledge about the

behavior of cantilevered traffic signal structures as well as methods used by researchers

across the country to study these structures. In the following sections, the results and

findings from various research projects related to truck-induced gust loads are

summarized.

2.2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON TRUCK-INDUCED GUST LOADS

2.2.1 Creamer et al. (1979)

The foremost study of truck-induced gust loading was performed by Bruce M.

Creamer, Karl H. Frank, and Richard E. Klingner at the University of Texas at Austin in

1979. Their research report, titled “Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign Structures from

Truck Wind Gusts,” describes an experimental and analytical study where three

cantilevered highway sign structures were instrumented in the field to determine how

they would respond when trucks passed beneath them. Because of the low inherent

damping of cantilevered highway sign structures, there were concerns that an impulse

load from a single truck could produce a large number of cycles of motion and ultimately

cause a fatigue failure. During the development of the field tests, the researchers realized

that measuring the actual truck-induced gust using pressure gages on the sign face was

not practical due to the highly turbulent flow of the gust. By measuring strains during the

7

field tests, it was observed that the magnitude of the member response varied depending

upon the truck speed, truck shape, and time interval between trucks. Trucks with a large

projected flat area, such as box-type trucks and gravel trucks, produced the greatest sign

movement. Based on the largest recorded event, the researchers were able to develop a

pressure distribution, shown in Figure 2.1, that when applied to an analytical model of a

cantilevered highway sign support structure, resulted in member stresses that matched the

stresses observed during the field tests. The pressure distribution consisted of a uniform

maximum pressure of 1.23 psf (58.9 Pa) applied vertically to the lighting fixtures while

horizontally the pressure varied linearly from 0 psf (0 Pa) at the top of the sign face to the

maximum pressure of 1.23 psf (58.9 Pa) at the bottom of the sign face. The researchers

understood that this pressure distribution did not accurately represent the actual loading

that was observed in the field, but rather it was one that simulated measured member

stresses. For this reason and for convenience, it was recommended that a maximum

pressure of 1.25 psf (60 Pa) be used for design. The anchor bolts were determined to be

critical elements governing the design of the cantilevered highway sign structures for

truck-induced gusts.

8

Figure 2.1: Pressure Distribution and Impulse Function To Simulate a Truck-Induced Gust (Creamer et al., 1979)

2.2.2 Edwards and Bingham (1984)

In 1984, Professors J. A. Edwards and W. L. Bingham of North Carolina State

University in Raleigh studied vibrations of four cantilevered highway sign structures in

the field. One of these cantilevered highway sign structures was implemented with hot

film anemometer patches to investigate truck-induced gust loading. Assuming

9

Bernoulli’s equation to calculate pressure from velocity, the researchers determined that

the maximum pressure recorded on the sign due to truck-induced gusts was 1.41 psf (67.5

Pa). It was concluded that both box-type medium duty trucks and large semi/tractor-

trailer trucks produced a similar response on the cantilevered highway sign structure.

The report concluded from both the experimental testing and analytical modeling that the

vibrations of the cantilevered highway sign structure due to truck-induced gusts did not

result in stress levels that would damage the structure.

2.2.3 Cook et al. (1996)

In 1996, Ronald A. Cook, David Bloomquist, Angelica M. Agosta, and Katherine

F. Taylor at the University of Florida, Gainesville, conducted the most extensive

experiments to date to determine the magnitude, direction, and frequency of truck-

induced gust pressure distributions. In order to obtain the data, pressure transducers and

pitot tubes were instrumented on an existing bridge over an interstate highway. Wind

pressures were recorded simultaneously at a rate of 714 readings per second from

instruments mounted at 15 degree increments between 0 degrees and 90 degrees to the

traffic flow as trucks passed beneath the apparatus. The setup can be seen in Figure 2.2.

It required four people to complete the field data collection: one controlled the computer,

another used the radar gun, another recorded the speeds of the trucks, and the fourth took

a picture of each truck and signaled when a truck was approaching.

10

Figure 2.2: Bridge Mounted Apparatus (Cook et al., 1996)

The researchers collected readings from 23 random trucks with the apparatus at an

elevation of 17 ft (5.2 m) above the road surface. A typical pressure versus time plot is

shown in Figure 2.3 with the corresponding truck in Figure 2.4. In order to determine the

vertical profile of the pressure variation, three readings were recorded at 17, 18, 19, and

20 feet (5.2, 5.5, 5.8, and 6.1 m) using a rented control truck at a constant speed of 65

mph (29 m/s) for each test. Using this relatively simple setup, the researchers made

several important conclusions. First, as a truck passed under the sign, it produced a

positive pressure pulse followed by a negative pressure as the end of the truck passed.

The maximum positive and negative pressure magnitudes were 1-2 psf (47.9-95.8 Pa),

with a mean pressure magnitude of one psf (47.9 Pa). Second, for every foot increase in

11

elevation from 17 feet (5.2 m) above the road surface, the design pressure pulse could be

decreased by 10%. Finally, the significant frequencies of truck-induced gust pressure

pulses were observed to range from 0.5 to 2 Hz. These frequencies are close to the

natural frequencies of VMS structures and could lead to resonance of such structures.

Figure 2.3: Typical Truck-Induced Gust Pressure (Cook et al., 1996)

12

Figure 2.4: Typical Truck (Cook et al., 1996)

2.2.4 DeSantis and Haig (1996)

In 1996, Philip V. DeSantis and Paul E. Haig used the static and dynamic analysis

capabilities of ANSYS to investigate the failure of a variable message sign (VMS)

structure in Virginia. The paper reports that the failure surface indeed revealed a fatigue

crack even though the structure was less than a year old and had not been exposed to any

recorded severe loads during its service life. During the investigation, it was concluded

that “the only loads that would explain the fatigue failure were vertical oscillations of the

arm” (DeSantis and Haig, 1996). The researchers reasoned that because VMS structures

are thicker than typical highway signs, they are more susceptible to a vertical force

produced by semi/tractor-trailer trucks with wind deflectors and decided truck-induced

13

gusts caused the failure. DeSantis and Haig believed that the wind deflectors on trucks

forced the air upward causing the VMS structure to move upward and subsequently

gravity would pull it back down causing the sign to oscillate. To model the truck-induced

gust load, it was assumed that the velocity of the wind being pushed upward by the trucks

was equal to the truck speed. DeSantis and Haig used a truck speed of 65 mph (29 m/s)

and decided to account for a potentially larger effective wind speed due to head winds by

including a gust factor of 1.3. Using the equation for wind pressure shown in Equation

2.1 below, the upward pressure on the sign caused by trucks is 18.28 psf (875 Pa)

multiplied by the drag coefficient. DeSantis and Haig used a drag coefficient of 1.45 for

the variable message sign. However, after the truck passes, there is a negative cycle as

gravity pulls the arm back down; this was conservatively assumed to be equal to the

initial upward cycle. Therefore, the calculated equivalent static pressure should be

doubled to account for the entire stress range. Using this philosophy, an equivalent static

pressure range of 36.6 psf (1760 Pa) multiplied by the drag coefficient can be obtained as

shown below.

Equation 2.1: P = 0.00256 * Vc2 * Cd * Ch (psf)

where: P = Wind Pressure

Vc = Velocity of Wind (Gust Factor * Truck Speed [mph])

Cd = Drag Coefficient

Ch = Height Coefficient (Use 1.0)

Calculation: P = 0.00256 * Vc2 * Cd * Ch

P = 0.00256 * [1.3 * 65 (mph)]2 * Cd * 1.0

P = 18.28 psf * Cd (double for complete cycle)

P = 36.6 psf * Cd or 1760 Pa * Cd

14

To confirm their assumptions, DeSantis and Haig back-calculated a pressure from

deflections observed in the field. However, these deflections were never measured and

were obtained from highway field crews that observed the arm moving up and down

“about a foot” total when trucks would pass under the sign. DeSantis and Haig calculated

the force using their ANSYS model that would produce the same “about a foot”

displacement at the tip of the arm. Using the calculated force, the researchers were able

to determine the equivalent pressure and finally back-calculate the truck speed. It was

reported that “with a significant number of assumptions, the calculated truck speed was

60 mph (26.8 m/s)” (DeSantis and Haig, 1996). Since this back-calculated truck speed of

60 mph (26.8 m/s) was similar to the original assumed truck speed of 65 mph (29 m/s),

DeSantis and Haig concluded that their failure theory must be correct.

2.2.5 Cali and Covert (1997)

Philip M. Cali and Eugene E. Covert studied the horizontal loading of highway

sign structures due to truck-induced gusts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in

1997. The researchers chose to study the effects of sign height, truck length, truck speed,

and truck shape by creating a 1:30 scale model of a truck and sign, and then running

different tests, which are summarized in Table 2.1. Each test case consisted of 14 to 18

different runs for the model. An example of the pressure measured on the front of the

sign face is shown in Figure 2.5. Cali and Covert concluded that the height of the sign

above the roadway and how aerodynamic the truck was both were inversely proportional

to the size of the truck-induced gust. In addition, they found that there are at most five

pressure pulses applied on the highway sign as the truck passes.

15

Table 2.1: Test Matrix (Cali and Covert, 1997)

Figure 2.5: Pressure on Front of Highway Signs (Cali and Covert, 1997)

16

2.2.6 NCHRP Report 412 (Kaczinski et al., 1998)

The objectives of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program

(NCHRP) Project 10-38, “Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and

Light Supports,” were to develop design procedures for wind-induced cyclic stresses for

the AASHTO Specifications. The results of this research project conducted by M. R.

Kaczinski, R. J. Dexter, and J. P. Van Dien at Lehigh University were published as

NCHRP Report 412: Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light

Supports. While performing a dynamic analysis, the authors considered both Creamer’s

pressure distribution model (Creamer et al., 1979), discussed in Section 2.2.1, as well as

the DeSantis model (DeSantis and Haig, 1996), discussed in Section 2.2.4. It was

determined that Creamer’s model did not accurately represent truck-induced gust

pressure distributions. Also, after analyzing two variable message sign structures that

had not long before experienced fatigue failures using the simple DeSantis model, it was

found that the life prediction calculations were consistent with the structure’s service life

prior to failure. Thus, the researchers concluded that the simple static load model

described by DeSantis should be used for design. The final design recommendation for

truck-induced gust loading was the procedure added in the AASHTO Specifications in

2001, which is presented in Section 2.3.1.

2.2.7 Johns and Dexter (1998)

Kevin W. Johns and Robert J. Dexter monitored a cantilevered variable message

sign structure in the field for three months for the Center for Advanced Technology for

Large Structural Systems (ATLSS) at Lehigh University in 1998. The VMS structure

was instrumented with strain gauges, pressure transducers, and a wind sentry in order to

determine the equivalent static pressures. The structure had been reported as having

experienced large-amplitude vertical displacements. However, by the time it was

17

monitored in the field, several aspects of the VMS structure had been changed since the

large-amplitude displacements had been reported. These changes included moving the

sign to a different location, using a taller column, experiencing potentially different

anchor bolt tightness, and removing a walkway that used to be located in front of the sign

and 18 inches (0.457 m) below the bottom of the sign. These changes might explain why

the VMS structure did not experience the same large-amplitude displacements during

monitoring that were observed before.

The pressure transducers with pitot tubes were placed at different elevations on

the face of the sign in order to obtain the gradient of truck-induced gust pressures.

However, the data from the pressure transducers appeared to be unpredictable even from

rented control trucks. Therefore, the researchers calculated truck-induced gust pressures

using the strain gauge data. See Figure 2.6 for the strain magnitudes measured in the

column from the control tests. Truck Tests 1 and 2 consisted of a conventional cab

followed by a cabover truck both in the first lane. Truck Test 3 consisted of both trucks

passing under the VMS at the same time side by side and traveling at 51 mph (22.8 m/s).

18

Figure 2.6: Column Response Due to Truck-Induced Gust (Johns and Dexter, 1998)

After monitoring the structure for three months, the researchers back-calculated

an equivalent static pressure of 11 psf (525 Pa) based on the largest stress recorded. In

the recommendations and conclusions, the authors stated that even though the measured

truck-induced gusts were significantly lower than DeSantis’ recommendation of 36.6 psf

(1760 Pa) times the drag coefficient, it did not seem unreasonable to use the design value

of 36.6 psf (1760 Pa) times Cd. Therefore, the only design changes recommended by

Johns and Dexter to the earlier proposals of NCHRP Report 412 were that the truck-

induced gust pressure should vary with height as shown in Table 2.2.

19

Table 2.2: Truck-Induced Gust Pressure Variation with Height (Johns and Dexter, 1998)

Elevation Above Truck-GustRoad Surface (m) Pressure (Pa)

0 – 6 17606.1 – 7 15307.1 – 8 11508.1 – 9 690

9.1 – 10 38010.1 and above 0

Johns and Dexter also looked into the effects of wind deflectors, used to improve

fuel efficiency, on the cabs of trucks. However, in order to achieve this, the air flow must

be kept laminar as it flows along the trailer instead of being pushed turbulently upward

towards the VMS. The presence of laminar flow over trucks with wind deflectors was

confirmed by researchers at Mack Trucking where wind tunnel tests were performed on

trucks with and without wind deflectors. The research findings showed that wind

deflectors keep the flow laminar; thus, wind deflectors are not expected to increase truck-

induced gust pressures applied to the cantilevered signs.

2.2.8 NCHRP Report 469 (Dexter and Ricker, 2002)

NCHRP Project 10-38(2), “Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal,

Sign, and Light Supports,” addressed the areas of suggested future research defined in

NCHRP Report 412. This research conducted by R. J. Dexter and M. J. Ricker at the

University of Minnesota was published as NCHRP Report 469: Fatigue-Resistant Design

of Cantilevered Signal, Sign, and Light Supports. One change in the truck-induced gust

section from Report 412 dealt with drag coefficients. In the 1994 Specifications, the

accepted wind drag coefficient for a variable message sign was 1.45; however, the 2001

Specifications recommended a drag coefficient of 1.7 for variable message signs. This

would change the accepted design pressure value of 36.6 psf (1760 Pa) recommended by

20

DeSantis and Haig (1996). DeSantis and Haig used a drag coefficient of 1.45 with the

design pressure of 36.6 psf (1760 Pa) to obtain a factored pressure of 53.3 psf (2,550 Pa).

Since the 2001 Specifications used a drag coefficient of 1.7 for a VMS, the design

pressure in the code would need to be changed to 31.3 psf (1,500 Pa) in order to obtain

the same factored pressure of 53.3 psf (2,550 Pa).

NCHRP Report 469 states that the recommended pressure in NCHRP 412 was

probably too conservative since the equivalent static pressure from Johns and Dexter

(1998) was only about one-fifth of the recommended factored pressure (11 psf [525 Pa]

compared to 53.3 psf [2,550 Pa]). However, Dexter and Ricker (2002) did not believe

that the design pressure could be lowered to the value reported by Johns and Dexter

(1998). Therefore, NCHRP Report 469 recommended a design value of 18.8 psf (900

Pa), which when factored for a VMS, led to an equivalent static pressure of 32 psf (1,530

Pa), which is still approximately three times the value measured in the field by Johns and

Dexter. NCHRP Report 469 also concluded that wind deflectors on trucks would not

increase the truck-induced gust pressure, and cited the Johns and Dexter (1998) study to

justify this.

NCHRP 469 suggested further research on three different areas, one of which was

wind load testing:

“Although little uncertainty exists about the magnitudes of the vortex-shedding

and galloping equivalent static pressure ranges, long-term field testing to verify the

natural wind-gust and, particularly, truck-induced gust pressures is still needed. Testing

should base equivalent static pressures on stresses induced in support members, rather

than on actual pressure measurements. Pinpoint pressure readings, on the one hand, only

cover small areas and poorly describe the effects of an entire gust on a structure. Support

member stresses, on the other hand, average the effects of the entire air mass applied to

21

the structure. Equivalent static pressure ranges can then be back-calculated from the

measured stresses” (Dexter and Ricker, 2002).

All of the design recommendations of NCHRP Report 469 for truck-induced gusts

were added to the AASHTO Specifications through the 2002 Interim Report, which is

discussed in Section 2.3.2.

2.3 AASHTO FATIGUE DESIGN

It is important to understand where the information in the AASHTO

specifications comes from in order to appreciate potential problems with the design code

provisions.

2.3.1 The 2001 AASHTO Specifications

In 2001, the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for

Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals were updated to include “Section 11 –

Fatigue Design.” This new section of the design code was based on NCHRP Report 412

(Kaczinski et al. 1998) and, under Article 11.4, required that cantilevered traffic signal

structures be designed for fatigue due to galloping, natural wind gusts, and truck-induced

gusts. The AASHTO Specifications takes an infinite-life fatigue design approach by

requiring that cantilevered traffic signal structures be designed to resist different

equivalent static wind loads modified by appropriate importance factors. The importance

factors adjust the level of structural reliability by accounting for the degree of hazard to

traffic in the event of failure, as seen in Table 2.3. The AASHTO Specifications’

Commentary recommends that cantilevered traffic signal structures with long mast arms

be classified as a Fatigue Category I.

22

Table 2.3: Importance Factors for Truck-Induced Gusts (AASHTO, 2001)

Fatigue ImportanceCategory Factor, IF

I 1 Critical cantilevered support structures installedon major highways

II 0.84Other cantilevered support structures installedon major highways and all cantilevered supportstructures installed on secondary highways

III 0.68 Cantilevered support structures installed at allother locations

Category Description

The equivalent static pressure range for truck-induced gusts is given in Equation

2.3 where Cd is the appropriate wind drag coefficient, given in Table 2.4, and IF is the

importance factor, previously shown in Table 2.3.

Equation 2.3: PTG = 36.6 * Cd * IF (psf)

PTG = 1760 * Cd * IF (Pa)

where: PTG = Truck-Induced Gust Pressure Range


IF = Fatigue Importance Factor

Table 2.4: Wind Drag Coefficients (AASHTO, 2001)

Traffic Signal 1.2Mast Arm 1.1Dampening Plate (by ratio of length to width) L/W = 1.0 1.12 2.0 1.19 5.0 1.20 10.0 1.23 15.0 1.30

The equivalent static design pressure range is then applied in a vertical direction

to the mast arm as well as to all attachments projected on a horizontal plane. It is applied

along the entire length of any sign panels/enclosures or along the outer 12 ft (3.7 m)

length of the mast arm, whichever is greater, but this length can be reduced for locations

23

where vehicle speeds are lower than 65 mph (30 m/s). The reduced pressure is given by

Equation 2.4.

Equation 2.4: PTG = 36.6 * Cd * [V / 65 (mph)]2 * IF (psf)

PTG = 1760 * Cd * [V / 30 (m/s)]2 * IF (Pa)

where: V = Truck Speed in mph or m/s

The code does note that truck-induced gust loading might not apply to every

cantilevered traffic signal structure with the following statement in the commentary:

“The given truck-induced gust loading may be excluded for the fatigue design of

overhead cantilevered traffic signal structures, as allowed by the owner. Many traffic

signal structures are installed on roadways with negligible truck traffic. In addition, the

typical response of cantilevered traffic signal structures from truck-induced gusts can be

significantly overestimated by the design pressures prescribed in this article” (AASHTO,

2001).

2.3.2 The 2002 Interim Edition to AASHTO Specifications

When the 2002 Interim Edition to the 2001 AASHTO Specifications was

released, it contained drastic changes to the truck-induced gust section. These changes

were all recommended in NCHRP Report 469. As previously discussed in Section 2.2.7,

the most significant change in the Specifications was the reduction of the design pressure,

which can be seen in Equation 2.5.

Equation 2.5: PTG = 18.8 * Cd * IF (psf)

PTG = 900 * Cd * IF (Pa)

where: PTG = Truck-Induced Gust Pressure Range


IF = Fatigue Importance Factor

24

Additional changes include stating that the equivalent static pressure only needs

to be applied to the 12 ft (3.7 m) length that produces the maximum stress range and

never has to be applied to any portion of the structure that is not directly above the

roadway. A linear variation of the pressure was also added depending on the height of

the structure above the roadway. The Specifications also state that the full design

pressure needs to be applied for heights up to and including 19.7 ft (6 m). Above 19.7 ft

(6 m) the pressure may be linearly reduced to a value of zero at 32.8 ft (10 m). The

reduction due to lower truck speeds still applies; only, it uses the updated design pressure

values.

Both the 2001 AASHTO Specifications as well as the 2002 Interim Edition, very

likely contain an incorrect statement in the Commentary where it is stated that “a drag

coefficient value of 1.20 was used by DeSantis and Haig (1996) to determine an

equivalent static truck pressure range on VMS” (AASHTO, 2001 and 2002). As

discussed in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.7, DeSantis and Haig (1996), in fact, used a drag

coefficient of 1.45.

2.3.3 The 2003 Interim Edition to AASHTO Specifications

The 2003 Interim Edition to the AASHTO Specifications did not propose any

changes to the truck-induced gust section. An extended fatigue design calculation

example for a cantilevered traffic signal structure based on the 2003 Interim Edition of

the AASHTO Specifications is presented in Appendix B.

25

3 Chapter Three: Preparations for Field Tests

3.1 SELECTION OF FIELD SITES

The first step in performing field tests on cantilevered traffic signal structures was

to identify potential sites and then choose the best sites to conduct the experiments based

on the following factors: posted speed limit, amount of truck traffic, types of trucks,

length of the mast arm, traffic signal configuration, safety during testing, and

accessibility for field testing personnel. TxDOT supplied a list of traffic signal structures

in four counties (Bastrop, Hays, Travis, and Williamson) surrounding Austin, Texas that

were located on roads where the posted speed limit exceeded 60 mph (26.82 m/s). After

discussions with TxDOT employees in the signal shop, several other potential sites were

added to the list, which is included in Appendix C. Using this preliminary list, all the

sites were visited and it was discovered that the majority of the sites on the list were

strain pole wire-supported traffic signal structures instead of cantilevered mast arms.

Eliminating these wire-supported structures, the list was reduced to the one shown in

Table 3.1. For the location of these sites around Austin, see Figure 3.1.

26

Table 3.1: Potential Sites for the Field Tests

# Intersection City County1 US290 AT CONVICT HILL RD AUSTIN TRAVIS2 RM620 AT HOME DEPOT BLVD BEE CAVE TRAVIS3 RM620 AT FALCON HEAD BLVD BEE CAVE TRAVIS4 RM620 AT LAKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL BEE CAVE TRAVIS5 RM620 AT LOHMANS SPUR BEE CAVE TRAVIS6 RM620 AT LAKEWAY BLVD BEE CAVE TRAVIS7 RM2222 AT RIVER PLACE BLVD AUSTIN TRAVIS8 RM2222 AT MCNEIL DR AUSTIN TRAVIS9 US183 AT NEW HOPE DR (CR-181) CEDAR PARK WILLIAMSON

10 SH29 AT DB WOOD DR GEORGETOWN WILLIAMSON11 SH29 AT INNER LOOP GEORGETOWN WILLIAMSON12 FM685 AT ROWE LN PFLUGERVILLE TRAVIS13 US290 AT SH95 ELGIN BASTROP14 US290 AT SH95S ELGIN BASTROP15 FM973 AT PEARCE LN AUSTIN TRAVIS

Figure 3.1: Location of Potential Sites for Field Tests (Google Maps, 2006)

27

The next step was to choose at least two of the potential sites to conduct the field

tests. Some of the sites were eliminated because of lack of truck traffic, insufficient

space on the shoulder to safely park a vehicle during testing, or proximity to road

construction, which would increase truck traffic but at a cost of lower vehicle speeds.

Sufficient space on the should for a vehicle was necessary because of the amount of

equipment needed at the site which included a datalogger, laptop computer, and other

related testing apparatuses discussed in Section 3.2. It should be noted that even though

the initial list provided by TxDOT included sites with posted speed limits greater than 60

mph (26.82 m/s), the range of actual speeds for the sites on the list varied from 45 to 60

mph (20.12 to 26.82 m/s), with all but two sites involving vehicle speeds below 60 mph

(26.82 m/s). After careful consideration, RM620 at Home Depot Blvd in Bee Cave,

Texas and US290 at SH95 in Elgin, Texas were chosen as the two field sites that best

satisfied all of the criteria.

3.1.1 The Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

The cantilevered traffic signal structure on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd in Bee

Cave, Texas, shown in Figure 3.2, was located at a tee-intersection, shown in Figure 3.3.

Home Depot Blvd only provided access to a Home Depot store and a few smaller stores.

The structure that was monitored served the northbound traffic on RM620. This site was

chosen because the majority of the box-type trucks and dump trucks that use RM620

would likely not be affected by the traffic lights in the northbound lanes of the

intersection since this was not a very busy tee-intersection. The structure consisted of a

40-foot mast arm with three traffic signals, two signs, a dampening plate, a camera, and a

luminarie on top of the column. There were two northbound lanes of traffic that passed

beneath the mast arm, and the posted speed limit was 55 mph. The dimensions of the

28

cantilevered traffic signal structure and the TxDOT drawings for the intersection are

shown in Appendix D.

Figure 3.2: The Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

29

Figure 3.3: Aerial View of the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd (Google Maps, 2006)

3.1.2 The Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

The cantilevered traffic signal structure on US290 at SH95 in Elgin, Texas, shown

in Figure 3.4, was located at a tee-intersection, shown in Figures 3.5 and 3.6. At the

intersection, SH95 bends in such a manner as to join with US290 through Elgin;

however, there is a small road that services a gas station on the other side of the tee-

intersection. The structure that was monitored served the eastbound traffic on the divided

US290. This site was chosen because of the potential for a significant volume of truck

traffic between Austin and Houston that used this section of US290, especially

semi/tractor-trailer trucks that were not very common at the RM620 field test site. The

structure consisted of a dual mast arm assembly (two arms orthogonal to each other) with

30

a 40-foot mast arm with three traffic signals, one sign, and a dampening plate. There

were two lanes of traffic that passed beneath the mast arm, and the posted speed limit was

50 mph (22.35 m/s). The dimensions of the cantilevered traffic signal structure and the

TxDOT drawings for the intersection are shown in Appendix D.

Figure 3.4: The Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

31

Figure 3.5: Site Location in Elgin (Google Maps, 2006)

Figure 3.6: Aerial View of the Field Site on US290 at SH95 (Google Maps, 2006)

32

3.2 EQUIPMENT

The following summarizes various details regarding the equipment used for the

field tests, along with suggestions for improvement of such testing that might help future

researchers engaged in similar studies.

3.2.1 Strain Gauges

Waterproof strain gauges type WFLA-6-11-1L made by TML Tokyo Sokki

Kenkyujo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan were utilized to eliminate the need to provide a

waterproof covering for the strain gauge in the field. The entire gauge and lead wire

connection was covered with a transparent and flexible epoxy resin. Complete

waterproofing was achieved by bonding the gauge with adhesive. Every gauge was 6

millimeters in length, had a resistance of 120 Ohms, and had a gauge factor of 2.11.

Using the procedure described below, the strain gauges were attached to the mast arm

sufficiently far enough from the weld to avoid being affected by the stress concentration

at the weld toe. All strains discussed in this report have been extrapolated to estimate the

nominal strain at the weld toe. However, none of these stresses or strains takes into

account the stress concentration at the weld toe.

The procedure for attaching the strain gauges included the following steps:

1) Remove galvanization by grinding a small area of mast arm where the strain

gauge is to be located

2) Sand mast arm to ensure a smooth surface

3) Clean thoroughly with acetone using gauze sponges

4) Attach strain gauge to mast arm in correct location using cellophane tape

5) Peel back tape just enough so strain gauge is no longer touching mast arm

6) Lightly coat strain gauge with a catalyst

33

7) Add adhesive to mast arm

8) Push down strain gauge and tape over adhesive

9) Apply pressure

10) Carefully peel off tape

11) Measure distance from fillet weld to the strain gauge

12) Paint over strain gauge with an air-drying acrylic coating

13) Cover strain gauge with foil tape.

This method had remarkable success in the field. The only suggested change for

future tests is to use strain gauges of type WFLA-6-11-3LT because the additional third

wire allows for the benefit of temperature-compensation along its entire length. This

difference did not present any problems for the field tests because each strain gauge’s

wires were cut to approximately five inches and soldered to a 22 AWG (American Wire

Gauge) three conductor shielded control cable made by Belden CDT making them

temperature-compensating gauges. Each shielded control cable was approximately 22

feet long allowing the strain gauges located on the mast arm to be plugged into the

datalogger located at the base of the traffic signal, as seen in Figure 3.7.

34

Figure 3.7: Strain Gauges Attached to Mast Arm and Shielded Cables

3.2.2 Data Acquisition Unit and Software

A Campbell Scientific CR23X Micrologger data acquisition unit was used to

collect the short-term data in the field. This unit was selected because of its positive

performance in earlier field tests for galloping of cantilevered traffic signal structures

(Florea, 2005). The CR23X, shown in Figure 3.8, is a compact, self-contained datalogger

that was easily attached to the traffic signal base. The unit was able to record up to

twelve channels; however, at the field test site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, only

three channels were used, one for each of the strain gauges. At the field test site on

US290 at SH95, nine channels were used – six for strain gauges and three for the

anemometer (discussed in Section 3.2.4). To communicate with the CR23X datalogger,

the Campbell Scientific PC208W software was used and the program used at the second

site (US290 at SH95) is presented in Appendix E. The only difference between the

35

programs used at the two sites was that at the site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, the

data from the three strain gauges was recorded every 0.04 seconds or at a sampling rate

of 25 Hz, while at the site on US290 at SH95, the data was recorded from six strain

gauges and the anemometer (wind speed in three directions) every 0.07 seconds or at a

sampling rate of 14.286 Hz. At each site, these data sampling rates were the fastest that

could be obtained across all the channels. During the field tests, it was powered by its

own batteries and then recharged at night. The CR23X datalogger performed

exceptionally well in the field.

Figure 3.8: CR23X Datalogger

36

3.2.3 Radar Gun

A Marksman model of the LTI 20-20 laser speed detection system from TxDOT,

shown in Figure 3.9, was used to record the speed of trucks that passed beneath the

instrumented structure. The Marksman model was different from the more conventional

radar guns in that it uses a laser light beam instead of microwaves to detect the speed of a

vehicle. This Marksman model was able to measure speeds up to 200 mph (89.41 m/s)

from as far away as 2,500 ft (762 m). However, for this project, the speeds were

recorded as close to the mast arm as possible in order to obtain the speed as the truck

passed beneath the arm. The Marksman model was very easy to use and the only concern

for future researchers is that it required a vehicle’s cigarette lighter socket for power. A

battery-powered radar gun would work just as well and would allow for a wider range of

movement for the test personnel involved in recording the truck speeds.

Figure 3.9: Radar Gun

37

3.2.4 Anemometer

A RM Young Model 81000 Ultrasonic Anemometer was used to determine wind

speed and direction at the field site. The three-axis ultrasonic anemometer is able to

measure wind speeds of 0-90 mph (0-40.23 m/s) in any direction. The anemometer was

attached to the column so that it was at the same height as the mast arm, as can be seen in

Figure 3.10. This anemometer was only used at the field test site on US290 at SH95. It

is recommended that future researchers always record wind speed and direction even if

truck-induced gusts are the primary focus as was the case in this study. The anemometer

was instrumented so that “north” was pointing in the direction of the oncoming traffic.

Figure 3.10: Anemometer

38

3.2.5 MicroSAFE Units

The Micro-Miniature Stress Analysis and Forecasted Endurance (MicroSAFE)

unit is a miniature smart sensor that measures strain data and records either raw data or

rainflow data in a histogram by using an ASTM Rainflow Cycle Counting Algorithm. It

was determined that using the MicroSAFE units connected to a strain gauge and attached

to the mast arm, as shown in Figure 3.11, was the easiest way to record long-term strain

data on the mast arms of the cantilevered traffic signal structures. The MicroSAFE units

recorded all strain data at 32 Hz but since the data were aggregated, it was not possible to

distinguish between strains caused by galloping, natural wind gusts, truck-induced gusts,

or vortex shedding. Most importantly, the MicroSAFE units were able to capture the

greatest strain cycles that each mast arm experienced during the period of the field tests.

These units were used for long-term monitoring for periods up to approximately 40 days,

limited by the unit’s battery life. Alternatively, raw data could have been recorded but

then the longest period for which data could be recorded would have been two hours.

Therefore, all the results from the MicroSAFE units consisted of aggregated long-term

rainflow-counted strain cycle histograms.

In order to record rainflow histogram data, the units had to be programmed with a

desired bin size. There were exactly 32 available bins for the rainflow analysis.

Therefore, care had to be taken to select an appropriate bin size so that all the data would

fall within the 32 bins. Any cycles that exceeded the largest bin were placed in the last

bin, emphasizing the need to choose a correct bin size. Previous research had shown that

a good starting point would be to have a bin size that would be able to record a value of

240 microstrain (Brisko, 2002), while others recommended a bin size of 17.2 microstrain

(Connor et al., 2004). Therefore, at the field site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, a bin

size of 20 microstrain was used. This proved to be too large, and hence, a bin size of

39

eight microstrain was used at the second field site on US290 at SH95. The MicroSAFE

units were programmed to collect data for one hour and 59 minutes and to then take the

next minute to record this data. This was done mainly to eliminate a problem the

MicroSAFE units have due to temperature changes throughout the day. In addition, this

method provided an added unforeseen benefit of comparing the rainflow data over two-

hour intervals instead of daily intervals.

Extensive testing was completed prior to the field testing to ensure that the

MicroSAFE units used were operating correctly. During this testing, several of the

available MicroSAFE units were found to be unreliable. Due to this low reliability, if

future researchers intend to use these MicroSAFE units, similar testing is recommended

and ample time should be set aside to verify to accuracy of the units prior to their use in

the field.

Figure 3.11: MicroSAFE Unit with Battery

40

3.2.6 Additional Equipment

In addition to the equipment discussed, a digital camera, a laptop computer, and a

stopwatch were also used in the field testing. One of the Ferguson Structural Engineering

Laboratory’s Nikon Coolpix 3100 digital cameras was used to take a picture of each truck

as it approached the traffic signal structure. This was an important piece of information

obtained from the field as it was used to identify exactly the shape of trucks that produced

displacements of the mast arm. The only difficulty with the digital camera was that the

battery life was very low and recharging was necessary throughout the day. Thus, it is

imperative that the testing personnel have several sets of batteries available. Another

inconvenience was that if consecutive trucks were very close together, the camera was

unable to take two pictures directly back to back, making it impossible to take a picture

of the second truck in the series. A Dell Inspiron 2600 laptop computer was used in the

field to connect to the CR23X datalogger and download the data obtained from the

testing. An extra computer battery was also very useful. A stopwatch was used to

determine exactly when a truck passed beneath the mast arm.

3.3 DATA RECORDING PROCEDURE

The data recording procedure required two people to collect all of the necessary

information during the field tests. Summarized below is the resulting data recording

procedure:

1) Attach CR23X datalogger to column.

2) Connect the strain gauges, anemometer, and computer to the datalogger.

3) Turn on datalogger and computer and start PC208W software.

4) Start recording data and at the same time start the stopwatch.

41

5) When a truck is approaching, one person takes a picture while the other person

records the truck speed with the radar gun.

6) As the truck passes beneath the mast arm, the time on the stopwatch is recorded

along with truck speed, traffic lane, and truck type on a field data sheet, examples

of which are shown in Appendix F.

7) Steps 5 and 6 are repeated for each truck.

8) After 40 to 60 minutes depending on the sampling rate, the data is downloaded to

the computer. This is done to ensure that the data set will not be larger than what

would fit in a Microsoft Excel file.

9) Repeat Steps 4-8 for additional data sets or disconnect the equipment.

10) Make sure to protect the ends of the strain gauges’ shielded cables and of the

anemometer cord by placing them in a Ziploc bag and zip-tying them to the

column.

3.4 TYPES OF TRUCKS

The different types of trucks that were observed during the field testing were

categorized into six major groups: Box-Type Trucks, Concrete Trucks, Dump Trucks,

Garbage Trucks, School Buses, and Semi/Tractor-Trailer Trucks. Not all trucks fell into

one of these groups, so some trucks were classified on an individual basis. For both the

box-type trucks and the semi/tractor-trailer trucks, additional classification was

necessary. Box-type trucks were separated into Box-Tall and Box-Small groups; while

semi/tractor-trailer trucks were divided into Semi-Tall, Semi, and Semi-Low groups. A

Box-Tall was a large box-type truck while a Box-Small was a small box-type truck. A

Semi-Tall was a semi/tractor-trailer truck where the trailer was taller than the cab; a Semi

was a semi/tractor-trailer truck with a trailer the same height as the cab; and a Semi-Low

42

was a semi/tractor-trailer truck with a trailer shorter than the cab. Examples of the

different types of trucks can be seen in Figures 3.12 to 3.17. In Appendix F, a complete

list of all the trucks observed during the field testing is presented.

Figure 3.12: Box-Type Trucks (Box-Small and Box-Tall)

43

Figure 3.13: Concrete Truck

Figure 3.14: Dump Truck

44

Figure 3.15: Garbage Truck

Figure 3.16: School Bus

45

Figure 3.17: Semi/Tractor-Trailer Truck (Semi-Low, Semi, Semi-Tall)

46

4 Chapter Four: Field Testing

4.1 OVERVIEW

This chapter presents details regarding several of the field tests that were

performed including static load tests, pluck tests, and recording of truck-induced gust

events. The chapter also discusses results from these tests and describes the influence of

natural wind gusts on the response of cantilevered traffic signal structures in contrast with

that due to truck-induced gust loads.

4.2 CONTROLLED FIELD TESTS

The two controlled field tests that were performed at each test site were a static

load test and a pluck test.

4.2.1 Static Load Test

A static load test has numerous valuable benefits including verification that the

equipment is working properly, confirmation (or calibration) of structural analysis

models, and enhanced insight into the behavior of the cantilevered traffic signal structure

being studied. At each field test site, a static load test was performed by hanging weights

from the tip of the mast arm while recording strain data, as shown in Figure 4.1. The

weights were hung from a chain that weighed 31.00 lbs (14.06 kg). The five weights that

were added to the chain weighed 22.62, 21.90, 25.70, 28.58, and 32.14 lbs (10.26, 9.93,

11.66, 12.94, and 14.58 kg). This resulted in a total of 161.94 lbs (73.455 kg) when all

five weights were attached to the chain. Applying different weights incrementally

verified that the structures responded in a linear elastic manner. Since this was a static

test, the results from both field test sites are very similar; therefore, the data are only

shown in Figure 4.2 for the site on US290 at SH95. The plot shows the data from two

strain gauges – one located on the top of the mast arm and the other located on the bottom

47

of the mast arm. As expected, the strain values from the two strain gauges are equal and

opposite. Also, the strain readings increase linearly with each incremental change in

applied weight at the tip of the mast arm.

Figure 4.1: Static Load Test

48

-125.0

-100.0

-75.0

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

130.00 180.00 230.00 280.00 330.00 380.00

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

Figure 4.2: Static Load Test Data (Strain Data at the Top and Bottom of the Mast Arm) for the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

4.2.2 Pluck Test

It is not easy to estimate the dynamic properties of cantilevered traffic signal

structures. For this reason, a free vibration experiment, called a pluck test here, was

performed at each field test site in order to determine the damping ratio, ζ, of the

structure for in-plane vibrations. To perform the pluck test, a weight was hung from the

mast arm near the tip. Once the movement from adding the weight had ceased and the tip

had experienced an initial downward displacement, the weight was suddenly cut and

allowed to fall to the ground. This allowed the cantilevered traffic signal structure to

experience in-plane free vibration. The time history of this free vibration response was

recorded using the datalogger, as can be seen in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 for the two sites. It is

easy to see the appearance of a “beating” response in the free vibration test for the

cantilevered traffic signal structure at the field site on US290 at SH95. This is likely due

49

to the additional mast arm in an out-of-plane (orthogonal) direction that makes up the

dual mast arm assembly at this site (see Figure 3.4). Using Equation 4.1, the damping

ratio for in-plane vibration of each cantilevered traffic signal structure can be estimated.

Equation 4.1: ζ = 1 / (2 * π * j) * ln(ui / ui+j)

where: ζ = Damping Ratio (fraction of critical damping)

j = Number of cycles separating two points in the

displacement time history where the amplitudes are ui and

ui+j, respectively

Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show smoothed power spectra of the strain data from the

pluck tests at the two field sites. It is easy to pick out the fundamental natural frequencies

(of 0.822 Hz and 1.036 Hz) for the cantilevered traffic signal structures at the two sites.

Other higher mode frequencies are also indicated on the plots.

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

25 75 125 175 225

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

Figure 4.3: Free Vibration Response of the Instrumented Structure at the Field Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

50

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

Figure 4.4: Free Vibration Response of the Instrumented Structure at the Field Site on US290 at SH95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 810-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

Frequency (Hz)

0.822 Hz

2.222 Hz

Figure 4.5: Smoothed Power Spectra of the Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm as Obtained from the Pluck Test at the Field Site on

RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

51

1 2 3 4 5 6 710-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

Frequency (Hz)

6.05 Hz

2.988 Hz

1.19 Hz

1.036 Hz

Figure 4.6: Smoothed Power Spectra of the Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm as Obtained from the Pluck Test at the Field Test

Site on US290 at SH95

4.3 AVAILABLE DATA ON TRUCK-INDUCED GUSTS

During the field testing, there were over 400 recorded truck events at the two test

sites, as summarized in Appendix F. To be included as a recorded truck event, the truck

needed to make it through the traffic light without stopping or without having to slow

down to a speed of approximately 25 mph (11.18 m/s) or less. Thus, trucks that were

stopped or slowed down by the traffic light were not included. At the field site on

RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, most of the trucks were box-type trucks, dump trucks, and

concrete trucks traveling close to the posted speed limit of 55 mph (24.59 m/s). The

distribution of truck speeds at this site is summarized by the histogram shown in Figure

4.7. On the other hand, the trucks at the field test site on US290 at SH95 were mostly

semi/tractor-trailer trucks traveling at speeds below the speed limit of 50 mph (22.35

m/s), as summarized in the histogram shown in Figure 4.8. The reason for this difference

52

observed at the two sites is that the RM620 at Home Depot Blvd site had a very long light

cycle allowing most vehicles to make it through the intersection without being stopped or

slowed down by the traffic light. However, the US290 at SH95 site had a very short light

cycle causing most of the vehicles to be slowed down by the traffic light. Figures 4.9 and

4.10 show the distribution of trucks according to the lane in which they were traveling for

the aggregated date from both field test sites. Lane 1 represents the right lane while Lane

2 is the left lane or the “passing lane.” As expected, the majority of trucks traveled in

Lane 1, the right lane.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Num

ber o

f Tru

cks

Figure 4.7: Histogram of Truck Speeds at the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

53

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Num

ber o

f Tru

cks

Figure 4.8: Histogram of Truck Speeds at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Num

ber o

f Tru

cks

Figure 4.9: Histogram of Speeds for Trucks Traveling in Lane 1 Based on Data from Both Field Test Sites

54

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Num

ber o

f Tru

cks

Figure 4.10: Histogram of Speeds for Trucks Traveling in Lane 2 Based on Data from Both Field Test Sites

4.4 ANALYSIS OF TRUCK EVENTS

After analyzing the recorded strain time histories from all the trucks, it appeared

that at both field test sites, the majority of trucks did not produce significant strains in the

mast arms. Some examples of field data gathered are described to illustrate the level of

response measured in the field. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show truck events (indicated by

vertical dotted lines on the plots) recorded at the field test site on RM620 at Home Depot

Blvd where there was a significant change in the strain readings either from the strain

gauges located at the top of the mast arm (in-plane), the strain gauges located on the side

of the mast arm (out-of-plane), or both. The information on these truck events is given in

Tables 4.1 and 4.2. More details regarding the events can also be found in Appendix F.

In Figure 4.11, the first truck (Truck No. 15) produced an obvious increase in the side

strain data when it passed beneath the mast arm. However, this truck did not produce a

55

similar effect on the in-plane strain. Also, note that the other three trucks (Truck Nos. 16,

17, and 18) did not have an appreciable effect on either strain measurement. It is

important to note that the resolution of the datalogger was 0.001 mV/V (millivolt/volt)

which corresponds to 1.9x10-6 in/in when converted to strain units for strain gauges that

have a 2.11 strain gauge factor. Thus, the smallest incremental change in strains that

could be recorded or resolved in the field was 1.9 microstrain. Therefore, as a quick

screening to ensure that the change in strain measurements was in fact due to the truck

and not due to noise or wind, a strain range of at least 7.6 microstrain (4 x 1.9

microstrain) when a truck event occurred was considered to be significant. As shown in

Figure 4.12, not all truck events were as obvious to pick out as the one (Truck No. 15) in

Figure 4.11. The truck event (Truck No. 9) shown in Figure 4.12 was still considered as

one that caused a change in the strain data. However, of the over 400 trucks that were

analyzed at the two field sites most did not produce any appreciable change in the strain

data as is illustrated in Figure 4.13 with data from the field test site on US290 at SH95.

None of the seven truck events (Truck Nos. 2-8) presented in Figure 4.13 caused any

change in the strain data. To verify that the trucks in Figure 4.13 were not the slowest or

smallest trucks observed, information on these trucks is presented in Table 4.3.

56

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)15 16 17 18

15 16 17 18

Figure 4.11: Strain Data from the Top of the Mast Arm (top) and the Side of the Mast Arm (bottom) Recorded at the Field Test Site on


Table 4.1: Truck Information for Figure 4.11 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 09-20-2005, Part 1)

Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type15 1246 59 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck)16 1283 54 1 Semi17 1290 44 1 Dump Truck18 1324 52 1 Box-Small (Dump Truck)

57

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)9

9



Table 4.2: Truck Information for Figure 4.12 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 08-24-2005, Part2)

Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type9 1252 49 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck)

58

-20-15-10

-505

101520

200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 3 4 5 6 7 8


US290 at SH95

Table 4.3: Truck Information for Figure 4.13 (from the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 – 03-27-2006, Part1)

Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type2 214 36 1 Camper3 226 43 1 Semi4 242 48 1 Pickup w/Trailer5 342 45 1 Semi-Tall6 345 48 1 Semi-Tall7 349 48 2 Semi-Tall8 352 50 2 Semi-Tall

59

Once the trucks that appeared to have caused a change in the strain data were

identified, their raw strain data were converted into rainflow cycle counts using the

program Crunch. Crunch is a program developed at the National Wind Technology

Center to analyze wind turbine fatigue loads (Buhl, Jr., 2003); however, it is a general-

purpose program and can be used to perform rainflow cycle calculations on most tabular

data. The rainflow cycle counts were converted into effective strain levels (using a

fatigue exponent of three corresponding to steel). An effective strain level of ten

microstrain was used as a cutoff for determining which trucks truly affected the response

of the cantilevered traffic signal structure. Of the over 400 truck events that were

recorded, only 18 trucks were determined to produce an appreciable change in the strain

data in the in-plane direction, out-of-plane direction, or both (16 trucks in the out-of-

plane direction only and two trucks in both directions for a total of 20 events). These

trucks are summarized in Table 4.4. All of these truck events were from the field test site

on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd. None of the trucks at the site on US290 at SH95 caused

an appreciable change in the strain data. The information provided in Table 4.4 includes

the data set that contained the truck event, the truck number from that data set, the time

the truck passed beneath the mast arm, the speed of the truck, the lane in which the truck

was traveling, the truck type, the component of mast arm strain that was affected, the

effective strain, and the maximum strain range recorded for the 20 events. Additional

details regarding these and all the other truck events at both field test sites may be found

in Appendix F. As can be seen from Table 4.4, the trucks that caused appreciable strains

were mostly box-type trucks and were traveling close to or slightly above the posted

speed limit. Interestingly, the truck events generally showed a greater influence on out-

of-plane strains than in-plane strains, which is an interesting finding since in the

AASHTO design code, the design for truck-induced gusts is based on application of a

60

vertical pressure which would produce in-plane motions (AASHTO, 2003). Some of the

truck events exhibiting this behavior are discussed in the following sections.

Table 4.4: Summary of Trucks that Affected the Strain Data

Time Speed Effective Strain Max Strain Range(Sec) (mph) (x10-6 in/in) (x10-6 in/in)

1 8-24-05 Part 1 9 1142 51 2 Dump Truck Out-of-Plane 14.97 252 8-24-05 Part 1 13 1479 58 2 Box-Small In-Plane 17.84 273 8-24-05 Part 1 13 1479 58 2 Box-Small Out-of-Plane 16.62 374 8-24-05 Part 2 1 129 54 2 Box-Tall In-Plane 14.79 215 8-24-05 Part 2 1 129 54 2 Box-Tall Out-of-Plane 10.12 216 8-24-05 Part 2 9 1252 49 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck) Out-of-Plane 10.83 197 9-20-05 Part 1 15 1246 59 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck) Out-of-Plane 16.28 298 9-20-05 Part 1 24 1804 57 1 Semi Out-of-Plane 10.24 259 9-20-05 Part 1 31 2469 54 2 Box-Tall Out-of-Plane 14.48 29

10 9-20-05 Part 2 18 1933 57 1 Box-Tall Out-of-Plane 10.34 1711 9-20-05 Part 2 19 2033 59 2 Box-Small Out-of-Plane 17.52 2712 9-27-05 Part 1 7 396 52 1 Box-Small Out-of-Plane 11.60 2113 9-27-05 Part 1 14 1278 58 1 Box-Small Out-of-Plane 9.91 1714 9-27-05 Part 2 7 426 60 2 Semi-Tall Out-of-Plane 9.97 1515 9-27-05 Part 3 8 951 49 1 Box-Small Out-of-Plane 10.27 1716 9-29-05 Part 1 2 486 45 2 Delivery Truck Out-of-Plane 24.85 3917 9-29-05 Part 1 27 2068 44 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck) Out-of-Plane 24.97 5118 9-29-05 Part 1 34 2330 55 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck) Out-of-Plane 9.70 1519 9-29-05 Part 2 8 698 58 1 Box-Tall Out-of-Plane 17.87 2520 9-29-05 Part 2 9 713 54 1 Box-Tall Out-of-Plane 18.84 31

Truck Type Plane AffectedEvent # Data Set Truck # Lane

4.4.1 “Ideal” Truck Event

Consider Event No. 7 in Table 4.4. This is an example of an “ideal” truck event

where the truck produced a large increase in strain and then the motion damped out. As

shown in Figure 4.14, before the Box-Small (Dump Truck) (Truck No. 15) passed

beneath the mast arm, the in-plane strain range was only two microstrain (practically zero

microstrain) and the out-of-plane strain range was six microstrain. Even though the in-

plane strain range only increased to about ten microstrain (an insignificant change), the

out-of-plane strain range increased to just under 30 microstrain. This out-of-plane strain

amplitude then proceeded to damp out in free vibration over the next 35-40 seconds (i.e.,

very slowly due to the very light damping). This is an important finding because the

AASHTO Specifications states that “although loads are applied in both the horizontal and

61

vertical direction, horizontal support vibrations caused by forces in the vertical direction

are most critical” (AASHTO, 2003). As shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.15, the first

truck and the fourth truck were the same Box-Small (Dump Truck) type of truck.

However, the fourth truck (Truck No. 18) did not produce the same strain response as the

first truck (Truck No. 15). The reasons for this might include the different speeds (59

mph vs. 52 mph), different lanes (Lane 2 vs. Lane 1), and different heights (from the

picture in Figure 4.15, the first truck appears to be a little taller than the fourth truck).

62

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)15 16 17 18

15 16 17 18



Table 4.5: Truck Information for Figures 4.14 and 4.15 (from the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd – 09-20-2005, Part 1)

Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type15 1246 59 2 Box-Small (Dump Truck)16 1283 54 1 Semi17 1290 44 1 Dump Truck18 1324 52 1 Box-Small (Dump Truck)

63

Figure 4.15: Trucks that Produced the Strain Data Shown in Figure 4.14

64

4.4.2 Three Consecutive Semi/Tractor-Trailer Trucks in Lane 1

Next, consider Event No. 8 in Table 4.4. One of the potential worst load case

scenarios for truck-induced gust loads on a cantilevered traffic signal structure might be

when a single traffic lane has consecutive trucks traveling at the speed limit. In this

particular truck event, three semi/tractor-trailer trucks passed beneath the cantilevered

traffic signal structure one right after the other, all in Lane 1. As shown in Figure 4.16,

none of the trucks (Truck Nos. 23, 24, and 25) caused any appreciable strains in the in-

plane direction. However, changes in the out-of-plane direction were again noticeable

larger. As shown in Table 4.6, all three of the trucks were traveling only slightly above

the speed limit. A picture of the first truck is shown in Figure 4.17; unfortunately, the

next two trucks passed too quickly, before another picture could be taken.

65

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)23 24 25

23 24 25




Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type23 1798 56 1 Semi24 1804 57 1 Semi25 1808 56 1 Semi

66

Figure 4.17: Truck that Produced the Strain Data Shown in Figure 4.16

4.4.3 Box-Tall Type Truck

As previously discussed, the box-type trucks seemed to have the greatest effect on

cantilevered traffic signal structures. The following is another example of a truck (Event

No. 9 in Table 4.4) that produced a noticeable change only in the out-of-plane strain data

as can be confirmed by studying Figure 4.18. It is interesting to note that, for this truck,

the motions of the mast arm do not decay as quickly as in the previous examples

discussed. It appears to take between 60-70 seconds for the motion to damp out

completely. As stated in Table 4.7, the second truck (Truck No. 31) shown in Figure

4.19 was a Box-Tall type truck traveling at 54 mph (24.14 m/s) in Lane 2.

67

-20-15-10

-505

101520

2450 2460 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 2520 2530 2540 2550

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

2450 2460 2470 2480 2490 2500 2510 2520 2530 2540 2550

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)30 31

30 31




Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type30 2465 N/A 1 Semi31 2469 54 2 Box-Tall

68


4.4.4 Semi-Tall Truck in Lane 2

It is sometimes thought that semi/tractor-trailer trucks are the worst type of trucks

for truck-induced gust loading. Event No. 14 in Table 4.4 is an example of such an

extreme semi/tractor-trailer truck event. The strain time history for this event in the two

components is shown in Figure 4.20. As Table 4.8 shows, the truck involved (Truck No.

7), shown in Figure 4.21, is a semi with a tall trailer traveling at 60 mph (26.82 m/s) in

Lane 2. As illustrated in Figure 4.20, this truck did have a slight influence on the top

strain; however, it was not enough to produce an effective strain over ten microstrain.

69

Likewise, in the out-of-plane direction there were not any significantly large strain cycles

recorded, but the strain cycles did stay relatively constant and were rather slow in

damping out.

-20-15-10

-505

101520

400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

6 7

6 7




Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type6 416 47 1 Concrete Truck7 426 60 2 Semi-Tall

70


4.4.5 Delivery Truck’s Unexpected Response

In one of the more unusual truck events (Event No. 16 in Table 4.4), a delivery

truck, shown in Figure 4.22, produced an unexpectedly large strain response in the out-

of-plane direction, as seen in Figure 4.23. As Table 4.9 states, the delivery truck (Truck

No. 2) was only traveling at 45 mph (20.12 m/s) in Lane 2. The truck produced almost

no vertical movement of the mast arm but it caused a strain cycle of 39 microstrain in the

out-of-plane horizontal direction. It appears from Figure 4.23 that roughly six seconds

71

before the truck passed beneath the mast arm, the side strain was influenced by

something. This could perhaps have been a wind gust but because no wind data were

recorded at the field test site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, this cannot be verified.

However, additional field notes did indicate that the day of the test in question –

September 29, 2005 – was indeed a windier day than the previous days when data were

recorded at this site.


72

-20-15-10

-505

101520

460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)2

2




Truck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Truck Type2 486 45 2 Delivery Truck

4.4.6 Trucks in Lanes 1 and 2 at the Same Time

The overall worst case truck-induced gust loading scenario for a cantilevered

traffic signal structure is believed by some to be one where two trucks pass

simultaneously beneath the mast arm. The following is an example of a Semi-Tall truck

73

in Lane 1 and a Semi-Low truck in Lane 2, as shown in Figure 4.24, both traveling

simultaneously at 49 mph (21.9 m/s) beneath the cantilevered traffic signal structure at

the field test site on US290 at SH95 (see Truck No. 10 in the data from March 27, 2006,

Part 3 in Appendix F). As seen in the strain response of the structure in Figure 4.25, the

two semi/tractor-trailer trucks together produced virtually no change in the in-plane

response and only limited change in the out-of-plane response. This is an important

finding since it is generally believed that this scenario might cause large truck-induced

gust response for such structures; yet, the response was barely noticeable. This

demonstrates that even though this field test site on US290 at SH95 should have been an

ideal location for truck-induced gust loads because of the significant truck traffic and the

relatively high posted speed limit (50 mph) there, the instrumented cantilevered traffic

signal structure at that site was not affected by truck-induced gusts.


74

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)10

10


US290 at SH95

4.5 EFFECT OF NATURAL WIND

While analyzing the strain data due to truck events at the field test site on RM620

at Home Depot Blvd, it was discovered that on numerous occasions the strain data would

increase significantly even though no trucks were present at the time. Sometimes these

strain recordings were even larger than those induced by any of the trucks. An example

of such a situation is shown in Figure 4.26. It was assumed that this strain variation was

due to the natural wind; however, since an anemometer was not installed at the field test

site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, there was no way to verify this. For this reason, an

anemometer was added to the test equipment used at the second test site, US290 at SH95.

75

-20-15-10

-505

101520

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-30-25-20-15-10

-505

10

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

Figure 4.26: Large Strain Cycles not Caused by Trucks at the Field Test Site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd

4.5.1 Short-Term Wind Data

Throughout the field testing program that was part of this study, a difference in

the response of the cantilevered traffic signal structures on windy days versus that on

days with little or no wind was apparent. On relatively calm days, the tip of the mast arm

would sometimes not even appear to move; however, on windy days, there were

noticeable tip displacements. To reinforce this observation below is an example of a

windy day, Wednesday, March 15, 2006, compared to a calm day, Thursday, March 16,

2006. The strain data were recorded at the field test site located at US290 at SH95 in

Elgin. Information regarding the time of the tests and the wind data can be found in

Table 4.10. Figures 4.27 to 4.30 show the top strain, side strain, and recorded wind speed

76

during the field testing. As can be seen, there was far greater movement of the

cantilevered traffic signal structure on March 15, 2006 (when the wind speed were

higher) than on March 16, 2006. By monitoring short-term field data, it is clear that there

is a correlation between large strain cycles and higher wind speeds.

Table 4.10: Wind Information at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 for March 15 and 16, 2006

Data Set Name Start Time End Time Average Wind Speed (mph) Max Wind Gust (mph)3-15-2006 Part1 10:58:09 12:03:32 6.94 14.423-15-2006 Part2 13:13:20 14:21:58 8.23 17.993-16-2006 Part1 9:50:28 10:57:30 2.82 7.433-16-2006 Part2 11:06:29 11:37:54 2.63 5.66

77

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-30-20-10

01020304050

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Win

d Sp

eed

(mph

)

Figure 4.27: Strain and Wind Data Recorded at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95 – 03-15-06, Part 1: Top Strain (top), Side Strain

(middle), Wind Speed (bottom)

78

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-30-20-10

01020304050

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Win

d Sp

eed

(mph

)



79

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-30-20-10

01020304050

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Win

d Sp

eed

(mph

)



80

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

-30-20-10

01020304050

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Stra

in (x

10-6

in/in

)

0

5

10

15

20

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Time (sec)

Win

d Sp

eed

(mph

)



81

4.5.2 Long-Term Wind Data

Since the anemometer only collected wind data while the field tests were being

conducted and strains recorded, there were no continuous 24-hour wind speed data

available for either of the two field test sites. However, using the Weather Underground

website, 24-hour wind data for each day were recorded from the Arbors at Dogwood

Creek Weather Station (Weather Underground, 2006). This weather station is located at

30o17’17” North Latitude and 97o19’49” West Longitude, approximately five miles from

the field test site in Elgin which is located at 30o21’03” North Latitude and 97o23’12”

West Longitude. As shown in Figures 4.31 and 4.32, it was indeed much windier on

March 15, 2006 (except for very early in the morning when there were very light winds)

than on March 16, 2006.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00

Hour

mph

Wind Speed

Wind Gust

Figure 4.31: Wind Data for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

82

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 0:00

Hour

mph

Wind Speed

Wind Gust

Figure 4.32: Wind Data for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

Since the MicroSAFE units captured the long-term strain data for the site in two-

hour intervals, it was interesting to compare the MicroSAFE rainflow cycle counts data to

the 24-hour wind data on March 15 and 16, 2006. The MicroSAFE rainflow cycle counts

data are presented in Tables 4.11 and 4.12 and shown as 3-D histograms in Figures 4.33

and 4.34. The rainflow cycle counts data correlate very well with the wind data shown in

Figures 4.31 and 4.32. On March 15, 2006, there was very little wind in the early

morning before 8:00am, and there were also only a very small number of rainflow cycles

during that time period. However, later in the day when it became windier, the rainflow

cycle counts clearly picked up. Conversely, March 16, 2006 was a relatively calm day,

and there were basically no significant rainflow cycle counts throughout the day. From

83

the various illustrations presented, it appears that cantilevered traffic signal structures are

more susceptible to the natural wind gusts than to truck-induced gusts.

Table 4.11: MicroSAFE Rainflow Cycle Counts Data for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

Time 20 28 36 44 52 603/15/2006 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/15/2006 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/15/2006 5:00 2 2 0 0 0 03/15/2006 7:00 23 3 1 0 0 03/15/2006 9:00 640 96 9 1 0 0

3/15/2006 11:00 764 51 2 1 0 03/15/2006 13:00 1064 301 84 24 4 23/15/2006 15:00 1539 387 97 19 3 13/15/2006 17:00 1109 209 45 4 0 13/15/2006 19:00 536 66 8 0 0 03/15/2006 21:00 800 197 36 5 4 03/15/2006 23:00 10 0 0 0 0 0

Bin Median (με)

Table 4.12: MicroSAFE Rainflow Cycle Counts Data for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

Time 20 28 36 44 52 603/16/2006 1:00 32 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 7:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 9:00 2 0 0 0 0 0

3/16/2006 11:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 13:00 2 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 15:00 2 2 0 0 0 03/16/2006 17:00 5 1 0 0 0 03/16/2006 19:00 1 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 03/16/2006 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bin Median (με)

84

2028

3644

5260

1:003:00

5:007:00

9:0011:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Num

ber o

f Cyc

les

Bin ( με)

Time

Figure 4.33: 3-D Rainflow Cycle Counts Histogram for March 15, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

2028

3644

52

60

1:003:00

5:007:00

9:0011:00 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 21:00 23:00

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Num

ber o

f Cyc

les

Bin ( με)

Time

Figure 4.34: 3-D Rainflow Cycle Counts Histogram for March 16, 2006 at the Field Test Site on US290 at SH95

85

5 Chapter Five: Conclusions

5.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1.1 Exposure of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures to High Speed Truck Traffic

Prior to performing the field tests, it was known that many cantilevered traffic

signal structures are located on roadways with negligible truck traffic or where vehicle

speeds are generally low. In addition to this, most traffic signal structures at locations

with a lot of truck traffic and where vehicle speeds are higher (usually outside cities) are

often wire-supported traffic signal structures instead of cantilevered traffic signal

structures. Thus, it is rare (and difficult) to find a cantilevered traffic signal structure that

is influenced by truck-induced gusts as was found during this study when only fifteen

potential sites were identified in four counties surrounding Austin, Texas. Even among

these fifteen sites, some either do not have sufficient truck traffic or see high vehicle

speeds as was the case for the field test site on US290 at SH95, which registered very low

strain levels during the field tests, as was discussed in Section 4.4.

5.1.2 Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures versus Cantilevered Highway Sign Structures

Cantilevered highway sign structures have been the focus of several studies on

truck-induced gust loads. However, cantilevered traffic signal structures and cantilevered

highway sign structures have many key differences. Cantilevered highway sign

structures (either variable message sign structures or the more common flat, green

highway signs) are located on major roadways such as highways and interstates where

vehicle speeds are high. These types of roadways are usually designed to keep the traffic

moving so vehicles are usually able to maintain a constant speed and rarely slow down.

On the other hand, the purpose of cantilevered traffic signal structures is to sometimes

86

stop traffic as part of traffic control for an intersection. It is reasonable to assume that

trucks traveling on a major highway with a posted speed limit of 55-65 mph (24.59-29.06

m/s) will, in fact, be traveling close to the posted speed limit as they pass beneath the

cantilevered highway sign structures. Thus, if the effects of trucks on the structure can be

determined and the daily truck traffic is known, then any such cantilevered highway sign

structure can be designed to meet a certain fatigue life. However, this philosophy is not

applicable for cantilevered traffic signal structures. First, cantilevered traffic signal

structures are located on roads where vehicle speeds are lower (there are not any traffic

lights on interstate highways, for example); therefore, trucks may be expected to cause

less damage to cantilevered traffic signal structures than to cantilevered highway sign

structures. Secondly, cantilevered traffic signal structures are generally used to stop

traffic. Even though the daily truck traffic for a particular roadway might be known, the

cantilevered traffic signal structures located on such a roadway will not experience the

entire daily truck traffic at the speed limit because some of the trucks may be stopped or

slowed down by the traffic light.

In this study, even though no actual traffic statistics were gathered, this fact was

observed at both sites. The field test site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd was relatively

unaffected by these constraints because the site was located at a tee-intersection that only

served a couple of retail stores and consequently, had an infrequent and short stop time.

Even with a long light cycle, it was still estimated that approximately 20% of the truck

traffic was affected by the traffic light (trucks either came to a complete stop or had to

slow down to speeds lower than 25 mph because vehicles ahead had stopped) and another

20% of the trucks slowed down a bit simply on nearing the intersection. The field test

site on US290 at SH95 had a more realistic light cycle length because even though it was

also located at a tee-intersection, the intersecting road was a highway with considerably

87

greater traffic volume than on Home Depot Blvd at the other field test site. Because of

the shorter light cycle, about 60% of the truck traffic was directly affected by the traffic

light and only about 10% of the truck traffic made it completely through the intersection

without having to slow down at all.

5.1.3 Influence of Truck Type

From the contours of the cab to the height of the trailer, all trucks are shaped

differently. Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that each type of truck has a different

effect on a cantilevered traffic signal structure. This was noted in the literature review in

Chapter 2 – for instance, previous researchers stated that box-type trucks, gravel trucks,

and semi/tractor-trailer trucks caused some structural motions (Creamer et al., 1979 and

Edwards and Bingham, 1984). The influence of truck shape and height were also noted

by Cali and Covert (1997). In Section 4.4, it was shown that very few of the trucks

analyzed during the field tests caused any significant movement in the mast arm at all.

Of all the trucks, the box-type trucks appear to have the greatest influence on the

response of the cantilevered traffic signal structure as seen in Figure 5.1. Interestingly, a

specific box-type truck carrying a dumpster (called a Box-Small Dump Truck in this

study) seemed to affect structural motions to the greatest extent (four of eight such trucks

influenced structural motions). A picture of a Box-Small Dump Truck is shown in Figure

2.2. One possible solution is that the top front edge of the dumpster is not rounded at all,

as is the case with most other trucks, making the truck less aerodynamic producing a

greater pressure pulse.

88

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Effe

ctiv

e St

rain

(x10

-6 in

/in)

Box-Small

Box-Small (Dump Truck)

Box-Tall

Delivery TruckDump Truck

Semi/Tractor-Trailer Truck

Figure 5.1: Influence of Truck Type on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain)

Figure 5.2: Box-Type Dump Truck

89

5.1.4 Influence of Traffic Lane

As was discussed in Section 2.3.2, the AASHTO Specifications state that the

equivalent static pressure range needs to be applied along a 12-foot (3.7-meter) length of

the mast arm directly above a traffic lane that produces the maximum stress range

(AASHTO, 2002). This section that produces the maximum stress range is usually the

outermost 12 feet (3.7 meters) of the mast arm. The actual section, though, might vary a

little depending on the location of traffic signals and any dampening plates since those

are the attachments to mast arms that can increase the exposed horizontal surfaces where

the equivalent static pressure is to be applied. Most cantilevered traffic signal structures

have the column located on the right shoulder with the mast arm extending left over the

roadway as was the case at the field test site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd. For such a

typical setup, the outermost 12-foot section of the mast arm is located directly above

Lane 2 (left lane). However, as was seen in Section 4.3, the majority of trucks travel in

Lane 1 (right lane). Thus, it is relatively unlikely (or rare) for the structure to experience

the design equivalent static pressure from truck-induced gust loads applied on the

outermost 12-foot section of the mast arm.

On the other hand, a cantilevered traffic signal structure might have its column

located on the left shoulder with its mast arm extending right over the roadway

comparable to what was seen at the field test site on US290 at SH95. This setup is only

practical on divided highways (i.e., with a median) or on one-way streets since the mast

arm will then not have to cross traffic from another direction. In such a setup, the

outermost 12-foot section would be located directly over Lane 1; however, as was seen at

the site on US290 at SH95, there is no need for the mast arm to extend across the entire

length of Lane 1. The traffic signals need to be located close to the centers of relevant

traffic lanes; therefore, the mast arm need only extend to the middle of Lane 1. Thus,

90

even with this setup, it is unlikely that trucks in Lane 1 could bring about pressures

similar to the levels of AASHTO’s design equivalent static pressure because they would

only influence a portion of the outermost 12-foot section of the mast arm that is directly

above that lane. Moreover, trucks in Lane 2 would cause pressures closer to the column

which would not lead to maximum stress ranges. This fact combined with the lower

truck speeds and the different types of trucks (more semi/tractor-trailer and fewer box-

type trucks) is most likely why none of the trucks at the field test site on US290 at SH95

registered any significant mast arm motions or response.

Figure 5.3 shows that most of the trucks that caused any appreciable structural

response (greater than ten microstrain) were traveling in Lane 2 (thirteen, compared to

seven in Lane 1) even though, overall, the majority of all trucks traveled in Lane 1.

Earlier, it was noted that none of the trucks in Lane 1 caused appreciable in-plane

structural response. The dampening plate on the mast arm was located directly over Lane

2 which would increase the horizontal area that the truck’s vertical pressure could affect.

It is not known whether the trucks in Lane 2 would still cause in-plane structural response

if the dampening plate were removed.

91

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Effe

ctiv

e St

rain

(x10

-6 in

/in)

Lane 1

Lane 2

Figure 5.3: Influence of Traffic Lane on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain)

5.1.5 Influence of Truck Speed

The AASHTO Specifications allow a reduction in the design equivalent static

pressure by a factor of (V / 65 mph)2 where V is the truck speed in mph or, equivalently,

a reduction by a factor of (V / 30 m/s)2 if the truck speed is in m/s (AASHTO, 2002).

Thus, for a location with a speed limit of 55 mph (24.59 m/s), such as the test site on

RM620 at Home Depot Blvd, the reduction factor would be 0.716, while for a location

with a speed limit of 50 mph (22.35 m/s), such as the test site on US290 at SH95, it

would be 0.592. However, as noted in Section 4.3, the majority of the trucks that were

92

not affected by the traffic signal were still traveling at speeds below the posted speed

limit, especially at the site on US290 at SH95.

By studying Figure 5.4, it is apparent that most of the trucks that caused any

appreciable strains were traveling at speeds above 50 mph (22.35 m/s). Interestingly,

there are a few cases such as the delivery truck, discussed in Section 4.4.5, which caused

one of the largest out-of-plane strain ranges, even though that truck was only traveling at

45 mph (20.12 m/s). In Figure 5.4, the two truck events with effective strains of

approximately 25 microstrain both occurred on September 26, 2005 which was a

relatively windy day. Therefore, it should be noted that these two data points probably

reflect the combined effects of both truck-induced gusts as well as natural wind gusts.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Effe

ctiv

e St

rain

(x10

-6 in

/in)

Figure 5.4: Influence of Truck Speed on Mast Arm Structural Response (Strain)

93

5.1.6 In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Structural Response

One of the most unexpected results from this study was that truck-induced gusts

appear to have a significant, and often greater, effect in the out-of-plane direction than

was the case in the in-plane direction as shown in Figure 5.5. According to the AASHTO

design code, only vibrations caused by the vertical force of the truck-induced gust need to

be considered because in the horizontal direction, vibrations resulting from the natural

wind are more dominant than those produced by truck-induced gusts (AASHTO, 2003).

The code does not state where the information that led to these conclusions came from.

However, there are some important things to note. First, as already discussed in the

literature review in Chapter 2, most of the previous research on truck-induced gusts was

performed on variable message sign structures. Previous research has shown that the

damping of motions due to truck-induced gusts for a VMS structure is much greater in

the out-of-plane direction than the in-plane direction. This can be confirmed by studying

Figure 5.6. The greater damping for out-of-plane motions was stated to be due to the

large amount of wind resistance as the sign moves through the air (Johns and Dexter,

1998). Johns and Dexter state that “this proves that it is not necessary to apply the truck-

induced gust loads to the front of the structure because a natural wind gust will

undoubtedly govern in this direction” (Johns and Dexter, 1998). Cantilevered traffic

signal structures, though, are very different from VMS structures and generally exhibit

similar damping characteristics and natural frequencies in in-plane and out-of-plane

directions of motion (Florea, 2005). In this study, it was found that trucks often caused

greater response levels in the horizontal (out-of-plane) direction than in the vertical (in-

plane) direction for the cantilevered signal structures studied.

94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Truck Speed (mph)

Effe

ctiv

e St

rain

(x10

-6 in

/in)

In-Plane

Out-of-Plane

Figure 5.5: In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Mast Arm Strains

95

Figure 5.6: In-Plane versus Out-of-Plane Stresses for a VMS Structure (Johns and Dexter, 1998)

5.1.7 Structural Response Due to Truck-Induced Gusts versus Natural Wind

Throughout the field testing program, it was clear that the majority of the trucks

caused no significant movement of the mast arms studied. However, the natural wind

would sometimes cause noticeable tip displacements. As discussed in Section 4.5, there

were virtually negligible strains in the mast arm on days without wind; yet, on windy

days there were sometimes significant recordings of strains in both directions. In Figure

5.7, the twenty most important truck events are compared with some natural wind events.

As seen in the figure, the natural wind is more critical for both in-plane and out-of-plane

directions of motion. While comparing the influence of truck-induced gusts with that of

96

natural wind gusts, it is assumed that the maximum truck-induced gusts at the sites were

captured in the short-term monitoring of the structures because of the variety of different

truck types that were recorded in each lane at speeds above the posted speed limit.

However, it is known that the wind speed at a particular site can vary throughout the year.

Thus, it cannot be assumed that the maximum natural wind loading was actually observed

during the limited duration of field testing in this study. Therefore, the natural wind has

the potential to have an even greater influence on the response of a cantilevered traffic

signal structures over its service life than was found here. As previously discussed,

truck-induced gust loads will only affect a small percentage of cantilevered traffic signal

structures, but natural wind, on the other hand, affects every structure. Thus, it is

imperative to correctly design cantilevered traffic signal structures for the more critical

loading case of natural wind gusts, and if this is done correctly, the design will effectively

account for truck-induced gusts.

97

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Average Wind Speed (mph) or Truck Speed/10 (mph)

Effe

ctiv

e St

rain

(x10

-6 in

/in)

Wind In-Plane

Wind Out-of-Plane

Truck In-Plane

Truck Out-of-Plane

Figure 5.7: Influence of Truck-Induced Gust versus Natural Wind on In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Mast Arm Strains

5.2 COMPARISON OF RESULTS FROM FIELD DATA TO AASHTO DESIGN CODE

The strain data collected during the field tests can be directly compared with the

strain levels consistent with the current AASHTO design code provisions. As shown in

Table 5.1, the current AASHTO equivalent static pressure design equations for truck-

induced gust loads on cantilevered traffic signal structures greatly overestimate the

maximum strain range. Using the maximum strain range observed and the AASHTO

design philosophy, new equivalent static pressure equations can be back-calculated. The

AASHTO design equations would need to be reduced as much as 90% in order to

98

accurately predict the maximum observed response of the cantilevered traffic signal

structures due to truck-induced gusts in this study.

Table 5.1: Comparison of Observed Strain Range Levels to AASHTO Design Strain Ranges

IF = 1.00 IF = 0.84 IF = 0.68 IF = 1.00 IF = 0.84 IF = 0.6827 με 339 με 285 με 231 με 243 με 204 με 165 με

Observed Max Strain Range

(In-Plane)

Predicted Max Strain Range by AASHTOWithout Speed Reduction With 55 mph Speed Reduction

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

5.3.1 Summary of Work

The research documented here was based upon a study of the effects of truck-

induced gusts on cantilevered traffic signal structures in the field. Initially, an extensive

literature review was completed through which valuable knowledge of cantilevered

traffic signal structures was obtained. This provided a useful starting point for the design

of a field testing setup. It was decided to complete short-term monitoring of the

structures by measuring strain data in both the in-plane and out-of-plane directions.

When a truck would pass beneath the mast arm, the time was recorded as were the speed

of the truck and the traveling lane; additionally, a picture of the truck was taken. The

method employed offered a rather simple and inexpensive way to obtain strain data as

well as other pertinent information about the trucks. The only disadvantage was that the

field testing was time-consuming since there was typically idle time between truck

events. Long-term monitoring was also completed by recording rainflow cycle counts

data using MicroSAFE devices.

Structures at two sites were instrumented as part of this study. One field test site

was located on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd in Bee Cave, Texas; the other was located

99

on US290 at SH95 in Elgin, Texas. Structures at both sites consisted of 40-foot mast

arms; however, the site on RM620 at Home Depot Blvd was a single mast arm, while the

site on US290 at SH95 was a dual mast arm assembly. Over 400 truck events (trucks not

slowed down or stopped by the traffic signal) were observed at the two sites. Of these

400 truck events, only 18 trucks caused any significant or appreciable movement in the

mast arm. Sixteen of these trucks only influenced the out-of-plane direction and two

trucks influenced the mast arm in both the in-plane and out-of-plane directions. Thus, for

this study, trucks were more likely to move the mast arm in the out-of-plane direction

than in the in-plane direction. This contradicts the AASHTO design provisions which

suggest that only truck-induced gusts in the vertical direction need to be considered

(AASHTO, 2001).

Even though trucks potentially pose a greater problem in the out-of-plane

direction than in the in-plane direction, the natural wind produced even greater response

in both directions during the field tests. The natural wind produced greater strain

amplitude cycles on the mast arm than any of the trucks. For this reason, the natural

wind loads are concluded to be more critical than truck-induced gust loads for

cantilevered traffic signal structures. Natural wind gusts can affect all cantilevered traffic

signal structures whereas truck-induced gusts can only potentially affect a limited number

of structures.

5.3.2 Recommendations

Based upon results from the field test studies carried out, it has been determined

that truck-induced gusts are not a critical design loading consideration for cantilevered

traffic signal structures. As previously discussed, natural wind has a far greater influence

on the overall behavior of cantilevered traffic signal structures. Therefore, it is believed

100

that if engineers design cantilevered traffic signal structures correctly for natural wind,

then any possible influence of truck-induced gusts will automatically be accounted for. It

is important to point out that this study did not include the effects of truck-induced gusts

on cantilevered highway signs (VMS or regular) structures, so these conclusions should

only be applied to cantilevered traffic signal structures. Also, this study was limited to

only two cantilevered traffic signal structures in Texas, where there is a minimum

clearance of 18 ft (5.5 m) above the roadway to the lowest point on the mast arm or

attachments. It is believed that the most extreme truck-induced gust for each structure

was observed and recorded, but the most extreme natural wind gust likely did not occur

during the field testing. For this reason, the natural wind has the potential to be an even

larger controlling factor in the design of cantilevered traffic signal structures than what

was initially believed. This study did not check the validity of the AASHTO design

equations for natural wind gusts on cantilevered traffic signal structures, but on the basis

of back-calculated strains associated with the AASHTO-specified equivalent static

pressure ranges for design against truck-induced gusts, it was found that the design

pressure ranges are extremely conservative compared to the measured strains in the field

for the two structures.

101

6 Appendix A: List of Sources Used in Literature Review

Alderson, Joseph L. “Fatigue Study of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Mast Arms.” Master’s thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1999.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO

Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. 4th Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2001.


Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. Interim Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2002.


Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. Interim Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2003.

Brisko, Charles E. “Dynamic Response of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures under

In-Service Conditions.” Master’s thesis, University of Wyoming, 2002. Cali, Philip M., and Eugene E. Covert. “Experimental Measurements of the Loads

Induced on an Overhead Highway Sign Structure By Vehicle-Induced Gusts.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 84 (2000): 87-100.

Cali, Philip M., and Eugene E. Covert. “On the Loads on Overhead Sign Structures in

Still Air by Truck Induced Gusts.” Wright Brothers Facility Report 8-97, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Chavez, Juan W., Amir S. Gilani, and Andrew S. Whittaker. “Fatigue Life Evaluation of

Changeable Message Sign Structures. Volume 2: Retrofitted Specimens.” Report No. UCB/EERC-97/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1997.

Chen, Genda, M. Barker, L. R. Dharani, and C. Ramsay. “Signal Mast Arm Fatigue

Failure Investigation.” Report No. RDT 03-010, Research, Development and Technology, University of Missouri at Columbia and University of Missouri at Rolla, 2003.

Chen, Genda, Michael Barker, D. Scott MacKenzie, Christopher Ramsay, Joe Alderson,

Lokeswarappa Dharani, and Jiaqing Yu. “Forensic Investigation of Failed Mast Arms of Traffic Signal Supported Structures.” Transportation Research Record 1814 (2002): 9-16.

102

Chen, Genda, Jingning Wu, Jiaqing Yu, Lokeswarappa R. Dharani, and Michael Barker.

“Fatigue Assessment of Traffic Signal Mast Arms Based on Field Test Data Under Natural Wind Gusts.” Transportation Research Record 1770 (2001): 188-194.

Cocavessis, Nicolas Steven. “Dynamic Response of Cantilever Highway Sign Structures

Subjected to Gust Loadings.” Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1978.

Connor, Robert J., Ian C. Hodgson, John Hall, and Carl Bowman. “Laboratory and Field

Fatigue Investigation of Cantilevered Signal Support Structures in the City of Philadelphia.” Report No. 04-22, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University, 2004.

Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, and Angelica M. Agosta. “Truck-Induced Dynamic

Wind Loads on Variable-Message Signs.” Transportation Research Record 1594 (1997): 187-193.

Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, Angelica M. Agosta, and Katherine F. Taylor.

“Wind Load Data for Variable Message Signs.” Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/0728-9488, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, 1996.

Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, and Michael A. Kalajian. “Mechanical Damping

System For Mast Arm Traffic Signal Structures.” 1999 New Orleans Structures Congress. Apr 18-Apr 21 1999, New Orleans, L.A., 1099-1102.

Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, Michael A. Kalajian, and Victoria A. Cannon.

“Mechanical Damping Systems for Traffic Signal Mast Arms.” Report No. WPI 0510775, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, 1998.

Cook, R. A., D. Bloomquist, D. S. Richard, and M. A. Kalajian. “Damping of

Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering 127 (2001): 1476-1483.

Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, Dylan S. Richard, Michael A. Kalajian, Victoria A.

Cannon, and David P. Arnold. “Design, Testing, and Specification of a Mechanical Damping Device for Mast Arm Traffic Signal Structures.” Report No. FL/DOT/BC-050, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, 2000.

103

Creamer, Bruce M., Karl H. Frank, and Richard E. Klingner. “Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign Structures from Truck Wind Gusts.” Report No. FHWA/TX-79/10+209-1F, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1979.

DeSantis, Philip V. and Paul E. Haig. “Unanticipated Loading Causes Highway Sign

Failure.” Proceedings of ANSYS Convention, 1996. Dexter, R. J. and M. J. Ricker. NCHRP Report 469: Fatigue-Resistant Design of

Cantilevered Signal, Sign, and Light Supports. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002.

Edwards, J. A., and W. L. Bingham. “Deflection Criteria for Wind Induced Vibrations in

Cantilever Highway Sign Structures.” Report No. FHWA/NC/84-001, Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State University, 1984.

Florea, Micah J. “Field Tests and Analytical Studies of the Dynamic Behavior and the

Onset of Galloping in Traffic Signal Structures.” Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2005.

Foley, Christopher M., Scott J. Ginal, John L. Peronto, and Raymond A. Fournelle.

“Structural Analysis of Sign Bridge Structures and Luminaire Supports.” Report No. 04-03, Wisconsin Highway Research Program, Marquette University, 2004.

Fouad, Fouad H., and Elizabeth Calvert. “AASHTO 2001 Design of Overhead

Cantilevered Sign Supports.” Report No.FHWA/UTCA/02216, University Transportation Center for Alabama, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2004.

Fouad, Fouad H., Elizabeth A. Calvert, and Edgar Nunez. NCHRP Report 411:

Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

Fouad, Fouad H., James S. Davidson, Norbert Delatte, Elizabeth A. Calvert, Shen-En

Chen, Edgar Nunez, and Ramy Abdalla. NCHRP Report 494: Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2003.

Gilani, Amir S., Juan W. Chavez, and Andrew S. Whittaker. “Fatigue Life Evaluation of

Changeable Message Sign Structures. Volume 1: As-Built Specimens.” Report No. UCB/EERC-97/10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1997.

104

Gilani, Amir, and Andrew Whittaker. “Fatigue-Life Evaluation of Steel Post Structures. I: Background and Analysis.” Journal of Structural Engineering 126 (2000): 322-330.

Gilani, Amir, and Andrew Whittaker. “Fatigue-Life Evaluation of Steel Post Structures.

II: Experimentation.” Journal of Structural Engineering 126 (2000): 331-340. Ginal, Scott. “Fatigue Performance of Full-Span Sign Support Structures Considering

Truck-Induced Gust and Natural Wind Pressures.” Master’s thesis, Marquette University, 2003.

Gray, Brian D. “Fatigue Effects on Traffic Signal Structures.” Master’s thesis,

University of Wyoming, 1999. Gray, B., P. Wang, H. R. Hamilton, and J. A. Puckett. “Traffic Signal Structure Research

University of Wyoming.” 1999 New Orleans Structures Congress. Apr 18-Apr 21 1999, New Orleans, L.A., 1107-1110.

Hamilton III, H. R., G. S. Riggs, and J. A. Puckett. “Increased Damping in Cantilevered

Traffic Signal Structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering 126 (2000): 530-537.

Hartnagel, Bryan A., and Michael G. Barker. “Strain Measurements on Traffic Signal

Mast Arms.” 1999 New Orleans Structures Congress. Apr 18-Apr 21 1999, New Orleans, L.A., 1111-1114.

Johns, Kevin W., and Robert J. Dexter. “The Development of Fatigue Design Load

Ranges for Cantilevered Sign and Signal Support Structures.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 77 & 78 (1998): 315-326.

Johns, Kevin W., and Robert J. Dexter. “Fatigue Related Wind Loads on Highway

Support Structures.” Report No. 98-03, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University, 1998.

Johns, Kevin W., and Robert J. Dexter. “Truck-Induced Wind Loads on Highway Sign

Support Structures.” 1999 New Orleans Structures Congress. Apr 18-Apr 21 1999, New Orleans, L.A., 1103-1106.

Kaczinski, M. R., R. J. Dexter, and J. P. Van Dien. NCHRP Report 412: Fatigue-

Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light Supports. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

105

Kashar, Lawrence, M. Russell Nester, James W. Jones, Mohammad Hariri, and Sanford Friezner. “Analysis of the Catastrophic Failure of the Support Structure of a Changeable Message Sign.” 1999 New Orleans Structures Congress. Apr 18-Apr 21 1999, New Orleans, L.A., 1115-1118.

Koenigs, Mark T., Tamer A. Botros, Dylan Freytag, and Karl H. Frank. “Fatigue

Strength of Signal Mast Arm Connections.” Report No. FHWA/TX-04/0-4178-2, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 2003.

Lundquist, R. C., K. Diane Johnson, and M. C. C. Bampton. “Aerodynamically Induced

Stresses in Traffic Signals and Luminaire Supports.” Report No. MRI-TR-2430-1, Mechanics Research Inc., 1971.

McManus, Patrick S. “Evaluation of Damping in Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures

under Forced Vibrations.” Master’s thesis, University of Wyoming, 2000. McManus, P. S., H. R. Hamilton III, and J. A. Puckett. “Damping in Cantilevered Traffic

Signal Structures under Forced Vibration.” Journal of Structural Engineering 129 (2003): 373-382.

Pulipaka, Narendra. “Wind-Induced Vibrations of Cantilevered Traffic Signal

Structures.” Ph.D. diss., Texas Tech University, 1995. Pulipaka, N., J. R. McDonald, and K. C. Mehta. “Wind Effects on Cantilevered Traffic

Signal Structures,” 9th International Conference on Wind Engineering, New Delhi, India, 1995.

Pulipaka, Narendra, Partha P. Sarkar, and James R. McDonald. “On Galloping Vibration

of Traffic Signal Structures.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 77 & 78 (1998): 327-336.

Robertson, A. P., A. D. Quinn, L. R. Burgess, and N. P. Teer. “Vehicle Buffeting of a

Cantilevered Traffic Signal Mast.” Silsoe Research Institute, Bedfordshire, England, 2004.

Quinn, A. D., C. J. Baker, and N. G. Wright. “Wind and Vehicle Induced Forces on Flat

Plates – Part 1: Wind Induced Force.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (2001): 817-829.

Quinn, A. D., C. J. Baker, and N. G. Wright. “Wind and Vehicle Induced Forces on Flat

Plates – Part 2: Vehicle Induced Force.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (2001): 831-847.

106

Sanz-Andres, A., J. Santiago-Prowald, C. Baker, and A. Quinn. “Vehicle-Induced Loads on Traffic Sign Panels.” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003): 925-942.

South, Jeffrey M. “Fatigue Analysis of Overhead Sign and Signal Structures.” Report

No. FHWA/IL/PR-115, Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Physical Research, 1994.

107

7 Appendix B: AASHTO Design Example

AASHTO Design of Traffic Signal Due to Truck Gusts

This program is written to do the 2003 AASHTO Fatigue Design of Traffic Signal Structures due to Truck-Induced Loading only. It assumes that the maximum number of attachments to the Traffic Signal Structure is five traffic signals and one dampening plate. It also assumes that signs in the vertical plane as well as signal back plates can be neglected.

Units and Definitions

psflbf

ft2:= kip 1000lbf:= ksi

kip

in2:= ORIGIN 1:= n 1 5..:=

USER INPUTSThe user can change any of the values that are shaded.

Column Dimensions:

Column height = L1 22ft:=

Height to mast arm = L2 18ft:=

Outer diameter at base = dbc 13in:=

Outer diameter at tip = dtc 10in:=

Thickness = tc 0.2391in:=

108

Dampening Plate Dimensions:

If there is not a dampening plate, enter 0 for L8 under Mast Arm Dimensions. If L8 = 0, then the following dimensions do not matter. Note: Do not enter 0 for WDP or an error will occur.

Length of dampening plate: LDP 24in:=

Width of dampening plate: WDP 4.8in:= LWratioLDPWDP

:= LWratio 5=

Traffic Signal Dimensions:

Enter the number of section heads per signal. Remember that signals are ordered starting with the one closest to the tip and continuing towards the column.

Signal 1Signal 2Signal 3Signal 4Signal 5

NumSigHeads

5

3

3

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=

Effective Projected Area (EPA) for a single signal head = EPA 1.472ft2:=

Width of single signal head = SigHeadwidth 13.5in:=

Height:

Height of horizontal support and attachments above traffic lane = height 18ft:=

Speed Limit:

Posted speed limit at location of traffic signal = V 65mph:=

Mast Arm Dimensions:

If there is not a signal or dampening plate, enter 0. Lengths are measured from the center of the column to the center of the signal or dampening plate. Signals are ordered starting with the one closest to the tip and continuing towards the column.

Length to signal 1 = L3 49ft:=





Length to dampening plate = L8 0ft:=

Length of mast arm = L9 52ft:=

Outer diameter at base = dbma 10.5in:=

Outer diameter at tip = dtma 4in:=

Thickness = tma 0.2391in:=

109

NOTE: This concludes the user inputs section.

STOP: Make sure that the above calculation is not red before moving on.Location 2.437ft=

Location error "x is too small"( ) x xx<if

error "x is too large"( )( ) x L9>if

x otherwise

:=

x xx Distanceweld+:=

Distanceweld 2ft:=Distance from weld toe =

xx 5.243in=xxdbc dtc−( )

2 L1⋅L1 L2−

dbma2

−⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

⋅dtc2

+:=

Note: You will want to be away from the stress concentration of the weld toe. However, this does mean that the weld toe sees a higher stress range than the one calculated by this program. The variable "xx" is the distance from the center of the column to the outer edge of the column based on the mast arm height. Thus, "x" (the stress location) must be at least the value of "xx" but not more than the length of the mast arm. It is recommended that you move 2 ft away from the weld toe to avoid the stress concentration.

Distance Where You Wish To Know The Stress:

curb 3ft:=Distance to curb =

The truck gust pressure range shall be applied along any 3.7 m (12 ft) length to create the maximum stress range, excluding any portion of the structure not located directly above a traffic lane. The distance to the curb is measured from the center of the column at the base to the curb.

Location of Applied Truck Gust Pressure:FC 2:=Fatigue category =

Note: According to the AASHTO Commentary, traffic signal structures with long mast arms should be classified as category 1.

Category Descriptions1 - Critical cantilevered support structures installed on major highways.2 - Other cantilevered support structures installed on major highways and all cantilevered support structures installed on secondary highways.3 - Cantilevered support structures installed at all other locations.

There are three fatigue categories of cantilevered support structures. Enter 1, 2, or 3.

Fatigue Category:

110

(AASHTO Eq. C 11-6)(Pa)PTG 900 Cd⋅V

30ms

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

2⋅ IF⋅

Description: The equivalent static truck pressure range may be reduced for locations where vehicle speeds are less than 30 m/s (65 mph).

Reduction due to speeds less than 30 m/s (65 mph)

(psf)PTG 18.8 Cd⋅ IF⋅

(AASHTO Eq. 11-6)(Pa)PTG 900 Cd⋅ IF⋅

Description: The passage of trucks beneath cantilevered support structures may induce gust loads on the attachments mounted to the horizontal support of these structures. Although loads are applied in both the horizontal and vertical directions, horizontal support vibrations caused by forces in the vertical direction are most critical. Therefore, truck gust pressures are applied only to the exposed horizontal surface of the attachment and horizontal support. Overhead sign and traffic signal support structures shall be designed to resist an equivalent static truck gust pressure range.

Equivalent Static Pressure

Cd

1.1

1.2

1.2

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

=Cd

CdMA

CdTS

CdDP

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=Mast ArmTraffic SignalDampening Plate

(Cd for Dampening Plate depends on the length to width ratio of the plate, this command assumes that the L/W ratio is rounded up to the next interval given in the table (AASHTO Table 3-6))

CdDP 1.12 LWratio 1.0≤if

1.19 1.0 LWratio< 2.0≤if

1.20 2.0 LWratio< 5.0≤if

1.23 5.0 LWratio< 10.0≤if

1.30 LWratio 10.0>if

:=

(Cd for Traffic Signal = 1.2 (AASHTO Table 3-6))CdTS 1.2:=

(Cd for Mast Arm = 1.1 (AASHTO Table 3-6))CdMA 1.1:=Wind Drag Coefficients

IF 0.84=

(AASHTO Table 11-1)IF 1.0 FC 1if

0.84 FC 2if

0.68 FC 3if

:=

Fatigue Importance FactorTruck Gusts Calculations:

CALCULATIONS

111

Aarmhor loc( ) 12ftd1 loc( ) d2 loc( )+( )

2⋅:=

Projected area of the mast arm:

d2 loc( )dtma dbma−( ) loc 12ft+ xx−( )⋅

L9 xx−dbma+:=

Diameter of mast arm at end of 12 ft section:

d1 loc( )dtma dbma−( ) loc xx−( )⋅

L9 xx−dbma+:=

Diameter of mast arm at beginning of 12 ft section:

Force from Truck Gust on Mast Arm

The equivalent static force is the pressure times the area on which the pressure is applied. The pressure is applied over the 3.7 m (12 ft) length that creates the maximum stress range.Thus, the forces are functions of location.

Equivalent Static Force Calculations:

PTG

17.371

18.95

18.95

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

psf=Mast ArmTraffic SignalDampening Plate

PTG P Cd⋅:=

P P height 6m≤if

Pheight 6m−

10m 6m−P 0psf−( )⋅−⎡⎢

⎣⎤⎥⎦

height 6m>if

0psf height 10m≥if

⎡⎢⎢⎢⎢⎣

⎤⎥⎥⎥⎥⎦

:=

P 18.8psfV

65mph⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

2⋅ IF⋅:=

Pressure from Truck Gust with Reductions

Equivalent Static Pressure Calculations:

PTG PTG height 6m≤if

PTGheight 6m−

10m 6m−PTG 0psf−( )⋅−

0psf height 10m≥if

Description: Full pressure shall be applied for heights up to and including 6 m (19.7 ft), and then the pressure may be linearly reduced for heights above 6 m (19.7 ft) to a value of zero at 10 m (32.8 ft).

Reduction due to height above traffic lane

(psf)PTG 18.8 Cd⋅V

65mph⎛⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎠

2⋅ IF⋅

112

TSstart

46.187

35.313

23.312

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

ft=TSstart

L3 NumSigHeads1 1,

12

⋅ SigHeadwidth⋅−

L4 NumSigHeads2 1,

12


L5 NumSigHeads3 1,

12


L6 NumSigHeads4 1,

12


L7 NumSigHeads5 1,

12


⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=

Starting location for traffic signals:

Areasighor

8

5

5

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

ft2=


Areasighorn 1,0 ft2⋅ Asighorn 1,

0if

trunc Asighorn 1,⎛⎝

⎞⎠

1+⎛⎝

⎞⎠

ft2⋅ otherwise

:=

For design purposes the Projected Area will be rounded up.

Asighor

7.36

4.416

4.416

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

=Asighor NumSigHeadsEPA

ft2⋅:=


Projected Area for the traffic signal:

Force from Truck Gust on Traffic Signals

MomentArmma loc( ) loc 6ft+ x−:=

Moment arm for the force acting on the mast arm:

Note: It is conservatively assumed that FTGma acts at the midpoint of the 12 ft.

FTGma loc( ) PTG1 1,Aarmhor loc( )⋅:=

Force from truck gust on mast arm:

113

Ending location for traffic signals:

TSend

L3 NumSigHeads 1 1,

12

⋅ SigHeadwidth⋅+

L4 NumSigHeads 2 1,

12


L5 NumSigHeads 3 1,

12


L6 NumSigHeads 4 1,

12


L7 NumSigHeads 5 1,

12


⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:= TSend

51.813

38.688

26.687

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

ft=

Length of traffic signals:

TSlength n 1,TSendn 1,

TSstart n 1,−:= TSlength

5.625

3.375

3.375

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

ft=

Length of traffic signals in 12 ft section of applied pressure:

Length TS1 loc( ) TSend1 1,loc− 0ft TSend1 1,

loc−≤ TSlength 1 1,≤if

loc 12ft+ TSstart 1 1,− 0ft loc 12ft+ TSstart 1 1,

−≤ TSlength 1 1,≤if

0ft TSend1 1,loc≤if

0ft TSstart 1 1,loc 12ft+≥if

TSlength 1 1,otherwise

:=








:=








:=

114

LengthTS4 loc( ) TSend4 1,loc− 0ft TSend4 1,

loc−≤ TSlength4 1,≤if


−≤ TSlength4 1,≤if



TSlength4 1,otherwise

:=

LengthTS5 loc( ) TSend5 1,loc− 0ft TSend5 1,

loc−≤ TSlength5 1,≤if


−≤ TSlength5 1,≤if



TSlength5 1,otherwise

:=

AreaFractionApplied loc( )

LengthTS1 loc( )

TSlength1 1,

LengthTS2 loc( )

TSlength2 1,

LengthTS3 loc( )

TSlength3 1,

LengthTS4 loc( )

TSlength4 1,

LengthTS5 loc( )

TSlength5 1,

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=

Force from truck gust on traffic signals:

FTGts loc( )

PTG2 1,Areasighor1 1,

⋅ AreaFractionApplied loc( )1 1,⋅









⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=

115

Moment arm for the force acting on the traffic signals:

MomentArmts1 loc( ) TSstart 1 1,

LengthTS1 loc( )

2+ x− loc 6ft+ L3≤if

TSend1 1,

LengthTS1 loc( )

2− x− loc 6ft+ L3>if

:=


LengthTS2 loc( )


TSend2 1,

LengthTS2 loc( )


:=


LengthTS3 loc( )


TSend3 1,

LengthTS3 loc( )


:=


LengthTS4 loc( )


TSend4 1,

LengthTS4 loc( )


:=


LengthTS5 loc( )


TSend5 1,

LengthTS5 loc( )


:=

MomentArmts loc( )

MomentArmts1 loc( )

MomentArmts2 loc( )

MomentArmts3 loc( )

MomentArmts4 loc( )

MomentArmts5 loc( )

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

:=

Force from Truck Gust on Dampening Plate

Start of dampening plate: DPstart 0ft L8 0ftif

L8LDP

2− otherwise

:= DPstart 0 ft=

End of dampening plate: DPend 0ft L8 0ftif

L8LDP

2+ otherwise

:= DPend 0ft=

116

Stress due to Truck Gust at location "x".Stress 6.959ksi=StressMTG cx⋅

Ixma:=

cxdxma

2:=

Stress at location "x":

Ixmaπ

64dxma

4 dxma 2 tma⋅−( )4−⎡

⎣⎤⎦⋅:=

Moment of Inertia at location "x":

dxmadtma dbma−( ) x xx−( )⋅

L9 xx−dbma+:=

Diameter of mast arm at location "x":Stress at location "x"

Moment due to Truck Gust at location "x".MTG 127.929kip in⋅=MTG MTG Locstart( ):=

Locstart 39.813ft=Locend Locstart 12ft+:=Locstart Maximize MTG loc,( ):=

loc curb≥loc L9 12ft−≤Given

loc L9 12ft−:=

MTG loc( ) FTGma loc( ) MomentArmma loc( )⋅ FTGts loc( )1 1, MomentArmts loc( )1 1,⋅+

FTGts loc( )2 1, MomentArmts loc( )2 1,⋅ FTGts loc( )3 1, MomentArmts loc( )3 1,⋅++

...

FTGts loc( )4 1, MomentArmts loc( )4 1,⋅ FTGts loc( )5 1, MomentArmts loc( )5 1,⋅++

...

FTGdp loc( ) MomentArmdp loc( )⋅+

...

:=

Determine "loc" that produces the maximum bending moment:

Calculation of Maximum Bending Moment

MomentArmdp loc( ) DPstartLengthDP loc( )


DPendLengthDP loc( )


:=

Moment arm for the force acting on the dampening plate:

FTGdp loc( ) PTG3 1,WDP⋅ Length DP loc( )⋅:=

Force from truck gust on dampening plate:

LengthDP loc( ) DPend loc− 0ft DPend loc−≤ LDP≤if

loc 12ft+ DPstart− 0ft loc 12ft+ DPstart−≤ LDP≤if

0ft DPend loc≤if

0ft DPstart loc 12ft+≥if

LDP otherwise

:=

Length of dampening plate:

117

MomentArmma Locstart( ) 43.376ft=


Force from Truck Gust on Traffic Signals = FTGts Locstart( )

151.603

0

0

0

0

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

lbf=

Moment Arm for Force Acting on Traffic Signals = MomentArmts Locstart( )

46.563

36.251

24.251

2.437−

2.437−

⎛⎜⎜⎜⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎟⎟⎟⎠

ft=

Force from Truck Gust on Dampening Plate = FTGdp Locstart( ) 0lbf=

Moment Arm for Force Acting on Dampening Plate = MomentArmdp Locstart( ) 2.437− ft=

Location to Determine Stress ("x") = x 2.437ft=

Maximum Bending Moment at "x" = MTG 127.929kip in⋅=

Stress at "x" = Stress 6.959ksi=

Note: This is the stress at location "x". However, the stress at the weld toe is larger due to a stress concentration.

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT VALUESNote: It is OK if the moment arm values are negative.

Fatigue Importance Factor = IF 0.84=

Mast ArmTraffic SignalDampening Plate

Wind Drag Coefficients = Cd

1.1

1.2

1.2

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

=

Mast ArmTraffic SignalDampening Plate

Pressure from Truck Gust with Reductions = PTG

17.371

18.95

18.95

⎛⎜⎜⎝

⎞⎟⎟⎠

psf=

Starting Location for Applied Truck Gust = Locstart 39.813ft=

Ending Location for Applied Truck Gust = Locend 51.813ft=

Force from Truck Gust on Mast Arm = FTGma Locstart( ) 83.034lbf=

Moment Arm for Force Acting on Mast Arm =

118

8 Appendix C: Potential Sites for Field Tests

# Site Intersection1 US183 AT SH292 RM1431 AT FM7343 US79 AT FM6854 SH95 AT SL3975 US290 AT SH956 US290 AT SH95S7 US290 AT SL1098 US290 AT 11TH ST9 US290 AT NUTTY BROWN RD

10 US290 AT SAWYER RANCH11 SL1 AT LA CROSSE12 RM620 AT QUINLAN PARK RD13 RM620 AT COMMANCHE TRAIL14 RM620 AT STEINER RANCH15 RM620 AT RM2222 / BULLOCK HOLLOW16 RM620 AT FOUR POINTS17 RM620 AT WILSON PARKE / ROCK HARBOUR18 RM620 AT BOULDER S19 RM620 AT BOULDER / BUCKNER20 RM620 EFR AT FM73421 RM620 AT NFR AT FM73422 FM734 AT BRUSHY CREEK RD23 FM734 AT AVERY RANCH24 FM734 AT NEENAH25 FM734 AT SPECTRUM26 FM734 AT AMBERGLENN27 FM734 AT ANDERSON MILL28 FM734 AT TAMAYO29 FM734 AT DALLAS30 IH35 WFR AT US18331 RM2222 AT RIVER PLACE BLVD32 RM2222 AT MCNEIL DR33 RM1431 AT VISTA RIDGE34 SH29 AT INNER LOOP35 FM973 AT PEARCE LANE36 FM685 AT ROWE LN37 FM685 AT KELLY38 RM620 AT SH7139 RM620 AT HOME DEPOT BLVD40 RM620 AT FALCONHEAD41 US183 AT NEW HOPE DR (CR-181)42 SH29 AT DB WOOD DR43 US290 AT CONVICT HILL RD44 RM620 AT LAKE TRAVIS HIGH SCHOOL45 RM620 AT LOHMANS SPUR46 RM620 AT LAKEWAY BLVDSites with strike-though are not mast arms. They are wire-supported signals. Sites in bold are mast arms and were potential sites for the project.

119

9 Appendix D: TxDOT Drawings for the Two Field Sites and the Signal Structures There

120

121

122

123

124

10 Appendix E: Datalogger Program

;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; START OF PROGRAM ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Program runs every 0.07 seconds or 14.286Hz *Table 1 Program 01: 0.07 Execution Interval (seconds) ; Set Flag 1 High to start program 1: If Flag/Port (P91) 1: 11 Do if Flag 1 is High 2: 30 Then Do ; Go to Subroutine 1: Collect and Record Date and Time Once 2: Do (P86) 1: 1 Call Subroutine 1 ; Start of the loop that collects data; it runs until the exit loop command 3: Beginning of Loop (P87) 1: 1 Delay 2: 0 Loop Count ; Go to Subroutine 2: Collect Seconds and Strain Data 4: Do (P86) 1: 2 Call Subroutine 2 ; Go to Subroutine 3: Writes Data to File 5: Do (P86) 1: 3 Call Subroutine 3 ; Set Flag 2 High to stop program; this exits the loop and sets Flag 1 Low 6: If Flag/Port (P91) 1: 12 Do if Flag 2 is High 2: 21 Set Flag 1 Low 7: If Flag/Port (P91) 1: 12 Do if Flag 2 is High 2: 31 Exit Loop if True

125

; Ends IF statement 8: End (P95) ; Ends IF statement 9: End (P95) ; Sets Flag 2 Low 10: Do (P86) 1: 22 Set Flag 2 Low ; Turn off power to anemometer 11: Do (P86) 1: 59 Turn Off Switched 12V ; Table 2 Program does nothing *Table 2 Program 01: 6000 Execution Interval (seconds) *Table 3 Subroutines ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; SUBROUTINE 1: Collect & Write Date & Time Once: (Year, Day, Hr, Min, Sec) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Beginning of subroutine 1: Beginning of Subroutine (P85) 1: 1 Subroutine 1 ; Collects the date and time in 5 consecutive locations starting with location 1 2: Time (P18) 1: 3 Store Year, Day, Hr, Min, Sec in 5 consecutive locations 2: 0000 Mod/By 3: 1 Loc [ Year ] ; Writes the date and time to a file 3: Do (P86) 1: 10 Set Output Flag High (Flag 0) ; Tell the program what data to write 4: Sample (P70) 1: 5 Reps

126

2: 1 Loc [ Year ] ; Turn on power to anemometer 5: Do (P86) 1: 49 Turn On Switched 12V ; Ends subroutine 1 6: End (P95) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; SUBROUTINE 2: Collect Sec, Strain & Wind Data: (Sec1, Strain1-6, Wind1-3) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Beginning of subroutine 7: Beginning of Subroutine (P85) 1: 2 Subroutine 2 ; Collects the seconds in location 6 8: Time (P18) 1: 0 Seconds into current minute (maximum 60) 2: 0000 Mod/By 3: 6 Loc [ Sec1 ] ; Collects the data from the 3 strain gauges in locations 7-9 9: Full Bridge (P6) 1: 3 Reps 2: 11 10 mV, Fast Range 3: 4 DIFF Channel 4: 1 Excite all reps w/Exchan 1 5: 2000 mV Excitation 6: 7 Loc [ Strain1 ] 7: 1 Mult 8: 0 Offset ; Collects the data from the 3 strain gauges in locations 10-12 10: Full Bridge (P6) 1: 3 Reps 2: 11 10 mV, Fast Range 3: 7 DIFF Channel 4: 2 Excite all reps w/Exchan 2 5: 2000 mV Excitation

127

6: 10 Loc [ Strain4 ] 7: 1 Mult 8: 0 Offset ; Collects the data from the anemometer in locations 13-15 11: Volt (Diff) (P2) 1: 3 Reps 2: 15 5000 mV, Fast Range 3: 1 DIFF Channel 4: 13 Loc [ Wind1 ] 5: 1.0 Mult 6: 0.0 Offset ; Ends subroutine 2 12: End (P95) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; SUBROUTINE 3: Write Data to File: (Sec1, Strain1-6, Wind1-3) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Beginning of subroutine 13: Beginning of Subroutine (P85) 1: 3 Subroutine 3 ; Writes data to file 14: Do (P86) 1: 10 Set Output Flag High (Flag 0) ; Tell the program what data to write 15: Sample (P70) 1: 10 Reps 2: 6 Loc [ Sec1 ] ; Ends subroutine 3 16: End (P95) ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- End Program ;--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

128

11 Appendix F: Truck Gust Field Data

Monday 08-22-05Part 1: Start: 10:57:22.00 am Stop: 11:09:23.72 am Total: 721.72 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 12 12 N/A 1 N/A Semi-Low2 0 15 15 N/A 1 N/A Semi-Low3 0 26 26 N/A 1 N/A Semi-Low4 0 37 37 N/A 1 N/A Box5 1 43 103 N/A 1 N/A Dump Truck6 4 03 243 N/A 2 N/A Box7 6 04 364 N/A 2 N/A Box8 7 07 427 N/A 2 N/A Box9 7 18 438 N/A 1 N/A Dump Truck10 8 15 495 N/A 1 N/A Semi-Low11 9 27 567 N/A 1 N/A Box12 9 51 591 N/A 1 N/A Dump Truck

Part 2: Start: 11:46:55.96 am Stop: 12:01:58.08 pm Total: 902.12 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 2 53 173 55 1 N/A Dump Truck2 7 42 462 53 1 N/A Dump Truck3 14 14 854 45 1 N/A Concrete Truck

Part 3: Start: 12:04:12.20 pm Stop: 12:19:49.20 pm Total: 937.00 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 4 10 250 55 2 N/A Box-Small2 5 19 319 54 1 N/A Dump Truck3 8 49 529 52 1 N/A Box-Tall4 11 16 676 49 1 N/A Box-Small5 11 52 712 40 1 N/A Semi6 12 00 720 52 2 N/A Garbage Truck

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)


129

Wednesday 08-24-05Part 1: Start: 10:27:53.96 am Stop: 11:08:50.64 am Total: 2456.68 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 56 56 48 1 N/A Semi2 2 36 156 53 2 DSCN4868 Semi3 9 20 560 51 1 DSCN4869 Dump Truck4 13 44 824 57 1 DSCN4870

5,6,7,8 17 20-40 1040-1060 31,36,36,39 1 DSCN4871-74 House Trucks9 19 02 1142 51 2 DSCN4875 Dump Truck10 20 31 1231 50 1 DSCN4876 Semi-Low11 21 16 1276 49 2 DSCN4877 Box-Small12 23 24 1404 39 1 DSCN4878 Semi13 24 39 1479 58 2 DSCN4879 Box-Small14 24 50 1490 55 1 N/A Dump Truck15 27 15 1635 48 1 DSCN4881 Garbage Truck16 29 02 1742 53 1 DSCN4882 Box-Small17 30 05 1805 N/A 1 DSCN488318 31 20 1880 48 1 DSCN4884 UPS Truck19 32 00 1920 51 1 DSCN4885 Dump Truck w/ Attachment20 34 42 2082 49 2 DSCN4886 Concrete Truck21 35 07 2107 53 1 DSCN4887 Dump Truck22 38 22 2302 51 2 DSCN4888 Box-Tall23 39 42 2382 55 2 DSCN4889 Box-Small24 39 49 2389 62 1 N/A Dump Truck


1 2 09 129 54 2 DSCN4895 Box-Tall2 2 57 177 N/A 1 DSCN4896 Concrete Truck3 3 14 194 58 1 DSCN4897 Dump Truck4 4 24 264 46 1 DSCN4898 Concrete Truck5 9 09 549 52 1 DSCN4899 Dump Truck6 12 39 759 49 1 DSCN4900 Garbage Truck7 17 04 1024 55 1 DSCN4901 Semi8 20 07 1207 58 1 DSCN4902 Semi-Tall9 20 52 1252 49 2 DSCN4903 Box-Small (Dump Truck)10 23 51 1431 46 1 DSCN4904 Concrete Truck11 27 36 1656 53 1 DSCN4905 Concrete Truck12 30 59 1859 53 2 DSCN4906 Box-Tall13 31 29 1889 45 1 DSCN4907 Box-Small (Dump Truck)14 33 01 1981 45 1 DSCN4908 Garbage Truck15 35 38 2138 41 1 DSCN4909 Semi

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

130

Tuesday 09-20-05Part 1: Start: 10:40:35.16 am Stop: 11:23:36.40 am Total: 2581.24 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 39 39 49 1 N/A Equipment Truck2 1 11 71 44 1 N/A Equipment Truck3 1 18 78 46 1 N/A4 2 35 155 40 1 DSCN5073 Dump Truck5 6 40 400 30 1 N/A Box-Tall6 7 10 430 58 1 N/A Equipment Truck7 12 52 772 56 1 DSCN5074 Concrete Truck8 13 11 791 58 1 DSCN5075 Dump Truck9 15 18 918 55 1 DSCN5076 Small Truck10 18 18 1098 53 2 DSCN5077 Box-Small11 18 24 1104 55 1 N/A Dump Truck12 18 30 1110 55 1 N/A Dump Truck13 18 35 1115 52 1 DSCN5078 Box-Tall14 19 41 1181 66 1 DSCN5079 Box-Small15 20 46 1246 59 2 DSCN5080 Box-Small (Dump Truck)16 21 23 1283 54 1 DSCN5081 Semi17 21 30 1290 44 1 DSCN5082 Dump Truck18 22 04 1324 52 1 DSCN5083 Box-Small (Dump Truck)19 24 04 1444 51 2 DSCN5084 Dump Truck20 27 21 1641 54 1 DSCN5085 Box-Small21 27 36 1656 56 1 DSCN5086 Semi22 28 03 1683 49 1 DSCN5087 Dump Truck23 29 58 1798 56 1 DSCN5088 Semi24 30 04 1804 57 1 N/A Semi25 30 08 1808 56 1 N/A Semi26 31 36 1896 46 1 DSCN5089 Semi27 33 51 2031 44 1 DSCN5090 Garbage Truck28 36 42 2202 44 1 DSCN5091 School Bus29 36 51 2211 45 1 DSCN5092 Concrete Truck30 41 05 2465 N/A 1 DSCN5093 Semi31 41 09 2469 54 2 DSCN5094 Box-Tall

(Min, Sec)

131


1 0 51 51 46 1 DSCN5095 Dump Truck2 1 50 110 48 1 DSCN5096 Semi3 3 03 183 40 1 DSCN5097 Dump Truck4 4 50 290 52 1 DSCN5098 Bucket Truck5 6 31 391 48 1 DSCN5099 Semi6 7 37 457 42 1 DSCN5100 Semi-Low7 9 07 547 57 1 DSCN5101 Semi-Tall8 12 32 752 56 1 DSCN5102 Box-Tall9 14 44 884 52 1 DSCN5103 Box-Tall10 16 00 960 57 1 DSCN5104 Semi11 16 13 973 47 1 DSCN5105 Small Truck12 18 01 1081 31 1 DSCN5106 Dump Truck13 18 14 1094 N/A 1 DSCN5107 Box-Small14 18 32 1112 51 1 DSCN5108 Box-Tall15 19 26 1166 53 1 DSCN5109 Semi16 30 40 1840 42 1 DSCN5110 Dump Truck17 31 02 1862 53 2 DSCN5111 Semi-Low18 32 13 1933 57 1 DSCN5112 Box-Tall19 33 53 2033 59 2 DSCN5113 Box-Small20 33 59 2039 53 2 DSCN5114 Semi21 37 37 2257 44 1 DSCN5115 Dump Truck22 38 55 2335 52 1 DSCN5116 Box-Tall23 39 08 2348 58 1 DSCN5117 Bread Truck

(Min, Sec)

132

Tuesday 09-27-05Part 1: Start: 09:50:56.88 am Stop: 10:34:13.92 am Total: 2597.04 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 19 19 57 2 DSCN5123 Ambulance2 1 26 86 50 1 DSCN5124 Dump Truck3 2 30 150 56 1 DSCN5125 Dump Truck4 3 35 215 54 1 DSCN5126 Gas Truck5 3 40 220 54 1 DSCN5127 Gas Truck6 5 35 335 54 1 DSCN5129 Dump Truck7 6 36 396 52 1 DSCN5130 Box-Small8 12 02 722 46 1 DSCN5131 Dump Truck w/ Trailer9 15 55 955 38 1 DSCN5131 Dump Truck10 15 57 957 37 1 DSCN5132 Box-Small11 16 06 966 57 2 DSCN5133 Delivery Truck12 16 16 976 58 1 DSCN5134 Semi-Low13 19 53 1193 53 1 DSCN5135 Box-Tall14 21 18 1278 58 1 DSCN5136 Box-Small15 22 44 1364 40 2 DSCN5137 UPS Truck16 22 55 1375 N/A 1 DSCN5138 Concrete Truck17 24 13 1453 42 1 DSCN5139 Semi-Tall18 26 27 1587 45 1 DSCN5140 Concrete Truck19 27 52 1672 44 1 DSCN5141 Dump Truck20 29 55 1795 48 1 DSCN5142 Box-Small (Dump Truck)21 30 04 1804 55 1 DSCN5143 Box-Tall22 34 30 2070 54 1 DSCN5144 Semi23 34 59 2099 51 2 DSCN5145 Box-Small24 36 07 2167 53 1 DSCN5146 Box-Small25 39 19 2359 51 1 DSCN5147 Semi26 39 30 2370 38 1 DSCN514827 39 35 2375 42 2 DSCN5149 School Bus28 41 01 2461 48 1 DSCN5150 Equipment Truck29 42 02 2522 57 2 DSCN5151 Dump Truck

(Min, Sec)

133


1 0 18 18 50 2 DSCN5152 Box-Small2 1 38 98 55 2 DSCN5153 Small Dump Truck3 2 41 161 52 1 DSCN5154 Semi4 2 51 171 57 1 DSCN5155 Box-Small5 4 49 289 40 2 DSCN5156 School Bus6 6 56 416 47 1 DSCN5157 Concrete Truck7 7 06 426 60 2 DSCN5158 Semi-Tall8 8 15 495 61 2 DSCN5159 Pickup w/ Trailer9 8 22 502 50 2 DSCN5160 Box-Small10 8 51 531 46 1 DSCN5161 Gas Truck11 9 41 581 52 1 DSCN5162 Equipment Truck12 13 59 839 55 1 DSCN5163 Box-Small13 19 18 1158 44 1 DSCN5164 Concrete Truck14 21 02 1262 36 1 DSCN5165 Concrete Truck15 21 52 1312 42 1 DSCN5166 Dump Truck16 22 06 1326 59 2 DSCN5167 Flatbed Truck17 23 35 1415 49 2 DSCN5168 Box-Small18 24 09 1449 61 1 DSCN5169 Box-Tall19 32 46 1966 <10 1 DSCN5170 Equipment Truck20 36 20 2180 24 1 DSCN5171 Dump Truck


1 0 27 27 53 1 DSCN5172 Box-Tall2 1 13 73 36 1 DSCN5173 Semi3 5 40 340 49 1 DSCN5174 Concrete Truck4 6 35 395 48 1 DSCN5175 Dump Truck5 7 35 455 54 1 DSCN5176 Box-Tall6 9 38 578 51 1 DSCN5177 Box-Tall7 10 30 630 28 2 DSCN5178 Semi8 15 51 951 49 1 DSCN5179 Box-Small9 17 55 1075 37 1 DSCN5180 Concrete Truck10 18 17 1097 50 2 DSCN5181 Semi-Tall11 21 03 1263 32 2 DSCN5182 Dump Truck12 22 48 1368 50 2 DSCN5183 Box-Small13 25 23 1523 55 1 DSCN5184 Dump Truck14 26 10 1570 50 1 DSCN5185 Dump Truck15 26 28 1588 51 1 DSCN5186 Box-Tall16 27 09 1629 50 1 DSCN5187 Dump Truck17 28 04 1684 52 1 DSCN5188 Box-Tall18 31 04 1864 54 2 DSCN5189 Dump Truck19 31 05 1865 55 1 N/A Box-Tall20 31 07 1867 55 1 N/A Dump Truck21 32 40 1960 45 1 DSCN5190 Dump Truck22 34 27 2067 51 1 DSCN5191 Semi23 37 16 2236 53 1 DSCN5192 Concrete Truck24 37 20 2240 48 1 DSCN5193 Box-Tall25 37 44 2264 50 2 DSCN519426 40 13 2413 57 2 DSCN5195 Garbage Truck27 42 14 2534 56 1 DSCN5196 Box-Small

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

134

Thursday 09-29-05Part 1: Start: 10:29:54.08 am Stop: 11:11:51.44 am Total: 2517.36 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 5 14 314 52 1 DSCN5197 Semi2 8 06 486 45 2 DSCN5198 Delivery Truck3 9 11 551 52 1 DSCN5200 Box-Small4 10 10 610 51 1 DSCN5201 Box-Tall5 15 16 916 48 1 DSCN5202 Dump Truck6 17 18 1038 31 1 DSCN5203 Dump Truck7 18 00 1080 44 1 DSCN5204 Dump Truck8 18 15 1095 38 1 DSCN5205 Box-Small9 21 05 1265 57 1 DSCN5206 School Bus10 22 53 1373 52 1 DSCN5207 Box-Small11 23 06 1386 54 1 DSCN5208 Dump Truck12 23 23 1403 51 2 DSCN5209 Small Box13 23 35 1415 55 1 DSCN5210 Equipment Truck14 24 17 1457 52 1 DSCN5211 School Bus15 24 22 1462 49 1 DSCN5212 Small School Bus16 25 21 1521 29 1 DSCN5213 Semi17 25 24 1524 53 2 N/A Pickup w/ trailer18 26 05 1565 46 1 DSCN5214 Semi19 27 18 1638 52 1 DSCN5215 Box-Small20 30 20 1820 51 1 DSCN5216 Dump Truck21 31 13 1873 51 1 DSCN5217 Semi22 31 23 1883 48 2 DSCN5218 Small School Bus23 32 02 1922 64 1 DSCN5219 Flat Bed Truck24 32 49 1969 29 2 DSCN5220 Dump Truck25 32 51 1971 46 1 DSCN5221 Dump Truck26 33 08 1988 56 1 DSCN5222 Dump Truck27 34 28 2068 44 2 DSCN5223 Box-Small (Dump Truck)28 34 34 2074 48 1 DSCN5224 Concrete Truck29 36 11 2171 50 1 DSCN522530 36 37 2197 52 1 DSCN5226 Box-Tall31 38 31 2311 52 2 DSCN5227 Box-Small (Dump Truck)32 38 36 2316 41 1 DSCN5228 Dump Truck33 38 45 2325 43 1 DSCN5229 Gas Truck34 38 50 2330 55 2 DSCN5230 Box-Small (Dump Truck)35 40 34 2434 51 1 DSCN5231 Box-Small

(Min, Sec)

135

Part 2: Start: 11:16:39.44 am Stop: 11:58:39.96 am Total: 2520.52 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 17 17 51 1 DSCN5232 Flat Bed Truck2 1 26 86 54 2 DSCN5233 School Bus3 2 23 143 47 1 DSCN5234 Concrete Truck4 4 43 283 53 1 DSCN5235 Semi5 6 46 406 39 1 DSCN5236 Concrete Truck6 7 51 471 34 1 DSCN5237 Box-Small7 10 18 618 52 1 DSCN5238 Dump Truck8 11 38 698 58 1 DSCN5239 Box-Tall9 11 53 713 54 1 DSCN5240 Box-Tall10 18 12 1092 38 2 DSCN5241 Semi-Tall11 19 54 1194 35 1 DSCN5242 Dump Truck12 20 54 1254 21 1 DSCN5243 Box-Tall13 22 00 1320 58 1 N/A Fed Ex14 24 16 1456 54 1 DSCN5244 Dump Truck15 25 00 1500 51 1 DSCN5245 Dump Truck16 25 08 1508 49 1 DSCN5246 Concrete Truck17 29 36 1776 22 1 DSCN5247 Semi18 31 01 1861 37 1 DSCN5248 Garbage Truck19 31 48 1908 44 1 DSCN5249 Semi-Tall20 32 41 1961 48 1 DSCN5250 Semi21 36 41 2201 51 1 DSCN5251 Dump Truck22 37 38 2258 54 1 DSCN5252 Gas Truck23 38 54 2334 33 1 DSCN5253 Dump Truck24 41 03 2463 52 1 DSCN5254 Semi-Tall

(Min, Sec)

136

Wednesday 03-15-06Part 1: Start: 10:58:09.88 am Stop: 12:03:32.40 pm Total: 3922.52 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 2 23 143 44 1 DSCN5664 Semi-Tall2 4 26 266 56 2 N/A Box-Small3 4 33 273 46 1 N/A Semi-Low4 7 33 453 33 1 DSCN5665 Dump Truck5 11 11 671 25 1 DSCN5666 Semi-Tall6 11 37 697 47 1 DSCN5667 Box-Small7 14 24 864 47 1 DSCN5668 Semi8 16 56 1016 54 1 DSCN5669 Camper9 16 59 1019 54 2 DSCN5669 Box-Small10 20 13 1213 34 1&2 DSCN5670 Semi-Tall(1) Semi-Low(2)11 20 20 1220 32 1&2 DSCN5671 Semi-Low(1) Box-Small(2)12 21 36 1296 29 2 DSCN5672 Semi-Tall13 21 40 1300 31 2 DSCN5673 Semi-Low14 23 13 1393 29 2 DSCN5674 Semi15 27 02 1622 43 1 DSCN5675 Semi-Tall16 30 02 1802 42 2 DSCN5676 Semi-Tall17 32 27 1947 50 1 DSCN5677 Box-Tall18 32 33 1953 37 1 DSCN5678 Semi19 32 38 1958 38 1 DSCN5679 Semi20 34 46 2086 37 1 DSCN5680 Semi-Tall21 38 21 2301 32 1 DSCN5681 Semi-Tall22 42 45 2565 28 1 DSCN5682 Semi-Low23 45 48 2748 41 1 DSCN5683 Semi-Tall24 52 33 3153 39 1 N/A Semi-Tall25 52 57 3177 46 1 DSCN5684 Semi-Tall26 53 07 3187 41 2 DSCN5685 Semi-Low27 54 17 3257 44 1 DSCN5686 Semi-Tall28 57 26 3446 40 1 DSCN5687 Semi-Tall29 60 16 3616 44 1 DSCN5688 Semi-Tall30 62 46 3766 48 1 DSCN5689 Semi-Tall31 62 55 3775 N/A 1 DSCN5690 Box-Small

US290 at SH95 Elgin

(Min, Sec)

137


1 8 23 503 31 2 N/A Semi2 14 05 845 44 1 N/A Utility Truck3 14 19 859 47 1 N/A Box-Small4 15 38 938 55 1 N/A Semi-Tall5 15 47 947 46 1 N/A Semi-Tall6 17 19 1039 43 1 DSCN5692 Semi-Low7 19 52 1192 33 1 DSCN5693 Semi-Tall8 20 11 1211 20 1 DSCN5694 Camper9 20 25 1225 40 1 DSCN5695 Semi-Tall10 31 53 1913 44 1 DSCN5696 Semi11 32 33 1953 36 1 DSCN5697 Box-Small12 32 43 1963 34 1 DSCN5698 Semi-Low13 36 13 2173 33 1 N/A Semi-Low14 36 19 2179 27 1 N/A Dump Truck15 36 26 2186 44 2 N/A Camper16 41 52 2512 54 2 N/A Box-Small17 46 43 2803 32 1 DSCN5701 Box-Small18 48 15 2895 39 1 DSCN5702 Semi19 48 26 2906 42 1 N/A Semi20 50 41 3041 46 1 DSCN5703 Semi21 50 43 3043 46 2 DSCN5703 Semi22 50 46 3046 46 1 DSCN5703 Semi23 53 50 3230 40 1 DSCN5704 Semi-Tall24 55 17 3317 46 2 DSCN5705 Box25 55 29 3329 46 2 DSCN5706 Semi26 56 43 3403 45 1 DSCN5707 Semi-Low27 56 51 3411 32 1 DSCN5708 Semi-Tall28 58 10 3490 35 1.5 DSCN5709 Semi-Tall29 65 27 3927 31 2 N/A Semi-Low

(Min, Sec)

138

Thursday 03-16-06Part 1: Start: 9:50:28.04 am Stop: 10:57:29.47 am Total: 4021.36 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 2 23 143 42 1 DSCN5710 Semi-Tall2 11 45 705 25 1 DSCN5711 Semi3 12 40 760 47 1 DSCN5712 Semi-Tall4 14 07 847 51 1 DSCN5713 Semi-Low5 17 37 1057 39 1 DSCN5714 Semi-Tall6 21 16 1276 39 1 DSCN5715 Semi7 21 30 1290 38 1 DSCN5716 Semi8 24 30 1470 42 1 DSCN5717 Delivery Truck9 28 32 1712 42 1 DSCN5718 Semi-Tall10 34 48 2088 42 2 DSCN5719 Garbage Truck11 40 11 2411 39 2 DSCN5720 Semi-Tall12 40 55 2455 43 1 DSCN5721 Semi-Tall13 41 08 2468 48 1 DSCN5722 Semi-Tall14 42 37 2557 50 1 DSCN5723 Semi-Tall15 42 42 2562 49 1 DSCN5724 Semi-Tall16 49 03 2943 49 1 DSCN5725 Semi-Tall17 49 08 2948 46 1 DSCN5726 Semi-Tall18 52 27 3147 47 1 DSCN5727 Semi19 56 26 3386 30 1 DSCN5728 Semi-Low20 60 42 3642 33 1 DSCN5729 Semi-Tall21 61 44 3704 35 2 DSCN5730 Box-Tall22 63 08 3788 41 1 DSCN5731 Dump Truck23 64 46 3886 46 2 DSCN5732 Semi-Low


1 6 25 385 37 1 DSCN5733 Semi-Tall2 6 31 391 42 1 DSCN5734 Semi3 7 45 465 41 1 DSCN5735 Dump Truck4 9 01 541 43 1 DSCN5736 Camper5 9 19 559 48 1 DSCN5737 Semi-Low6 11 43 703 38 2 DSCN5738 Box-Small7 13 47 827 48 2 DSCN5739 Semi-Low8 15 42 942 15 1 DSCN5740 Equipment Truck9 17 43 1063 36 1 DSCN5741 Concrete Truck10 17 48 1068 42 1 DSCN5742 Trailer11 19 27 1167 45 2 DSCN5743 Semi-Low12 20 30 1230 40 1 DSCN5744 Semi-Low13 22 10 1330 44 2 DSCN5745 Box-Tall

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

139

Saturday 03-18-06Part 1: Start: 10:52:54.02 am Stop: 12:00:40.53 pm Total: 4066.51 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 14 07 847 40 1 DSCN5747 Semi-Tall2 39 41 2381 37 2 DSCN5748 Box-Small3 41 40 2500 36 1 DSCN5749 Semi-Tall4 43 39 2619 28 1 DSCN5750 Semi-Tall5 45 57 2757 ~20 1 DSCN5751 Semi-Tall6 48 04 2884 45 1 DSCN5752 Semi-Tall7 54 47 3287 46 1 DSCN5753 Dump Truck


1 27 37 1657 36 1 DSCN5755 Semi2 32 42 1962 26 2 DSCN5756 Semi-Tall3 34 34 2074 45 2 DSCN5757 Trailer4 36 36 2196 36 2 DSCN5758 Pickup Box

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

140

Monday 03-27-06Part 1: Start: 10:48:37.16 am Stop: 11:17:42.33 am Total: 1745.10 secTruck # Time (Sec) Speed (mph) Lane Picture File Comments

1 0 31 31 23 2 DSCN5760 Semi2 3 34 214 36 1 DSCN5761 Camper3 3 46 226 43 1 DSCN5762 Semi4 4 02 242 48 1 DSCN5763 Pickup w/ Trailer5 5 42 342 45 1 DSCN5764 Semi-Tall6 5 45 345 48 1 N/A Semi-Tall7 5 49 349 48 2 DSCN5765 Semi-Tall8 5 52 352 50 2 DSCN5766 Semi-Tall9 7 10 430 34 1 DSCN5767 Semi-Tall10 12 52 772 47 1 DSCN5768 Semi-Low11 16 02 962 45 1 DSCN5769 Box-Tall12 16 05 965 44 1 DSCN5769 Semi-Tall13 19 38 1178 41 1 DSCN5770 Box-Tall14 28 03 1683 40 1 DSCN5771 Semi15 28 12 1692 38 1 N/A Semi-Low


1 4 23 263 52 2 DSCN5773 Semi-Tall2 4 48 288 36 2 N/A Semi-Tall3 5 35 335 37 1 DSCN5774 Semi-Tall4 8 22 502 47 1 DSCN5775 Semi-Tall5 11 53 713 37 1 DSCN5778 Semi-Tall6 16 09 969 40 1 DSCN5779 Semi-Tall7 22 11 1331 30 1 DSCN5780 Box-Tall8 24 29 1469 43 1 DSCN5781 Semi-Tall9 24 33 1473 42 1 DSCN5781 Semi-Tall10 24 49 1489 43 1 DSCN5782 Semi-Tall11 25 49 1549 46 2 DSCN5783 Semi-Tall12 27 27 1647 49 1 DSCN5784 Semi-Low13 28 49 1729 50 1 DSCN5785 Semi-Tall14 29 55 1795 30 2 DSCN5786 Semi-Tall15 31 38 1898 41 1 DSCN5787 Semi16 31 59 1919 37 1 DSCN5788 Box-Tall17 33 07 1987 34 1 DSCN5789 Semi-Low18 33 12 1992 34 1 DSCN5789 Semi-Tall19 34 35 2075 29 2 DSCN5790 Semi20 36 41 2201 42 2 DSCN5791 Semi-Tall21 36 53 2213 41 2 DSCN5792 Bus22 39 02 2342 34 1 DSCN5793 Pickup w/ Trailer

(Min, Sec)

(Min, Sec)

141


1 2 13 133 26 1 DSCN5794 Semi-Tall2 4 22 262 39 1 DSCN5795 Semi3 6 10 370 46 1 DSCN5796 Semi-Tall4 7 56 476 38 1 DSCN5797 Semi5 11 05 665 28 1 DSCN5798 Box-Small6 16 02 962 37 2 DSCN5799 Semi7 16 19 979 36 1 DSCN5800 Semi-Low8 16 26 986 40 1 DSCN5801 Semi-Low9 18 08 1088 47 1 DSCN5802 Pickup w/ Trailer10 19 28 1168 49 1&2 DSCN5803 Semi-Tall(1) Semi-Low(2)11 24 40 1480 33 1 DSCN5804 Semi12 27 11 1631 29 2 DSCN5806 Box-Small13 27 48 1668 44 1 DSCN5807 Semi-Tall14 30 51 1851 52 2 DSCN5808 Semi15 34 51 2091 31 1 DSCN5809 Dump Truck16 36 27 2187 37 1 DSCN5810 Semi-Tall17 42 41 2561 35 1 DSCN5811 Semi18 44 00 2640 39 2 DSCN5812 Semi-Tall19 46 22 2782 34 1 DSCN5813 House Truck20 49 27 2967 46 1 DSCN5814 Semi-Tall21 49 32 2972 38 1 DSCN5815 Semi-Low22 49 34 2974 38 1 DSCN5815 Semi-Tall23 53 54 3234 40 1 DSCN5816 Semi24 53 56 3236 45 2 DSCN5816 Semi-Low25 55 43 3343 35 1 DSCN5817 Box-Small

(Min, Sec)

142

12 References

1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. 4th Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2001.

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. Interim Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2002.

3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. Interim Edition. Washington, D.C.: AASHTO, 2003.

4. Brisko, Charles E. “Dynamic Response of Cantilevered Traffic Signal Structures under In-Service Conditions.” Master’s thesis, University of Wyoming, 2002.

5. Buhl, Jr., Marshall, L. “Crunch User’s Guide.” National Wind Technology Center, Golden, Colorado, 2003.

6. Cali, Philip M., and Eugene E. Covert. “On the Loads on Overhead Sign Structures in Still Air by Truck Induced Gusts.” Wright Brothers Facility Report 8-97, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

7. Connor, Robert J., Ian C. Hodgson, John Hall, and Carl Bowman. “Laboratory and Field Fatigue Investigation of Cantilevered Signal Support Structures in the City of Philadelphia.” Report No. 04-22, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University, 2004.

8. Cook, Ronald A., David Bloomquist, Angelica M. Agosta, and Katherine F. Taylor. “Wind Load Data for Variable Message Signs.” Report No. FL/DOT/RMC/0728-9488, Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station, University of Florida, 1996.

9. Creamer, Bruce M., Karl H. Frank, and Richard E. Klingner. “Fatigue Loading of Cantilever Sign Structures from Truck Wind Gusts.” Report No. FHWA/TX-79/10+209-1F, Center for Highway Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1979.

10. DeSantis, Philip V. and Paul E. Haig. “Unanticipated Loading Causes Highway Sign Failure.” Proceedings of ANSYS Convention, 1996.

11. Dexter, R. J. and M. J. Ricker. NCHRP Report 469: Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign, and Light Supports. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002.

143

12. Edwards, J. A., and W. L. Bingham. “Deflection Criteria for Wind Induced Vibrations in Cantilever Highway Sign Structures.” Report No. FHWA/NC/84-001, Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, North Carolina State University, 1984.

13. Florea, Micah J. “Field Tests and Analytical Studies of the Dynamic Behavior and the Onset of Galloping in Traffic Signal Structures.” Master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 2005.

14. Google Maps Website. http://maps.google.com, 2006.

15. Johns, Kevin W., and Robert J. Dexter. “Fatigue Related Wind Loads on Highway Support Structures.” Report No. 98-03, ATLSS Engineering Research Center, Lehigh University, 1998.

16. Kaczinski, M. R., R. J. Dexter, and J. P. Van Dien. NCHRP Report 412: Fatigue-Resistant Design of Cantilevered Signal, Sign and Light Supports. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

17. Weather Underground Website. http://www.wunderground.com, 2006.

13 Vita

Matthew Nielsen Albert was born in Charlotte, North Carolina on November 29,

1981, the son of Harry and Mary Jo Albert. After graduating from Terry Sanford High

School in Fayetteville, North Carolina in June of 2000, he enrolled at Rose-Hulman

Institute of Technology in Terre Haute, Indiana. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in

May of 2004 having earned a Bachelor of Science degree with a double major in Civil

Engineering and Mathematics. In August of 2004, he entered The University of Texas at

Austin to purse a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering with an emphasis in

Structural Engineering.

Permanent address: 5300 Birchleaf Dr.

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606

This thesis was typed by the author.

Date post:	28-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Copyright by Matthew Nielsen Albert 2006 N. Albert Thesis Spring 2006.pdfField Testing of...

Documents